Consumer Group Demands XP for Vista Victims

thefickler writes "Dissatisfaction with Windows Vista seems to be swelling, with the Dutch Consumers' Union (Consumentenbond) asking Microsoft to supply unhappy Vista users with a free copy of Windows XP. Not surprisingly, Microsoft refused. This prompted Consumentenbond to advise consumers to ask for XP, rather than Vista, when buying a new computer."

Comments

Ok, start the flames

[OptimusPaul]

What is so bad about Vista? I have not used it yet. I've seen it, and I know some people that are using it and they don't complain about it. What's the deal? Is it just that it's new?

Re:Ok, start the flames

[dave420]

I think it's great. All the eye-candy is performed on the GPU, and the talk about it being DRM-with-a-GUI is nonsense - it performs perfectly as a media player, with astounding video quality (thanks to everything being rendered through Direct3D, and real emphasis placed on media quality). I use Vista at work on my Dell. It only has an X1300 slim-line GPU, but that's good enough to run 2x22" screens at 1680x1050. It runs all the software I want (Adobe stuff, apache, mysql, games, iTunes, etc.), and is never slow. It does "use" a lot of resources, but it does so intelligently. If it wants to use up all my memory, it does so to improve performance, and if applications need it, it is relinquished. I can see how some folks would interpret that as it being full of bloat, but it's just intelligently using the system's available resources.

I don't know why people don't like it. I've got nothing but great things to say about it. Obviously it's not going to be popular with "people who are highly-appreciative of Linux on the desktop" (to choose my words carefully), or those who don't like Microsoft for any particular reason, or "people who are highly-appreciative of OSX on their Macs" (again, choosing words carefully). But, if you've been using Windows for years, and you get on with the differences in the ways Vista works to XP, Vista isn't scary or rubbish or hiding in your cupboard waiting to pounce, it works great.

But that's just my opinion, obviously. I'm sure someone will come along and tell me how I'm all kinds of wrong.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but you'll probably get called a shill. When you visit Slashdot, you're often arguing against people who have nothing in their lives except the OS they use, so you can't expect any kind of rational debate.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[gallwapa]

I got a new Dell Vostro 1000 last night. I was pretty set on going to use OpenSuse 10.3 x86_64 anyway, but, I was gona wait a few days to use vista to get the 'feel' of it (since i know im going to have to support it for my consulting business and in my job anyway eventually)....

After about 45 minutes, I was ready to erase the damn partition rather than just shrink it. Vista is a a steaming turd. Try finding how to turn off hibernate. I was excited that you could finally resize the sys volume from within Windows. But It would only let me shrink it to 50gigs from 100. During the SuSe install, I shrunk it to 20gb (since the first 10 is just freaking windows itself holy crap!) and windows boots just fine still.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Anonymous Coward]

Your video quality claims are misguided, as that lies in the combination of the codec and the graphics card. ATI graphics cards have had outstanding hardware video overlay filtering for years, and yet Vista throws away overlay support in favour of the inferior Direct3D. Yes with shaders you can acheive a comparable quality, but you try running a fullscreen PS3.0 shader on an X1300 and see how your performance goes. The problem lies in the texture filtering algorithms of Direct3D being optimized for speed, not quality (especially video quality - its a different beast altogether)

Your point about memory use is a highly valid one, I'm sick of people trying to free up memory to make their system run better, the ideal thing is to load it up with as much stuff as you can. One way of achieving this in XP is to set the memory use to "System Cache", I hope vista uses a smarter system.

IMHO Vista is premature, it has none of the features I want (WinFS) and all of the features I don't need (Confirm this action). Bring on Vienna.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[SEMW]

Try finding how to turn off hibernate Ummm. No-one forces you to hibernate. If you don't want to hibernate, just... Don't click the 'hibernate' button?

Re:Ok, start the flames

[cyclocommuter]

You're not alone in liking Vista here on Slashdot. I have it running on 3 computers and it is great indeed. People who complain about Vista using up too much memory probably don't even realize Vista is just using memory as part of its SuperFetch feature. The result is much faster launch times for applications. Bootup times are also faster and so is the much better "Hybrid Sleep". Just try enabling sleep/hibernate modes in Linux and you will see how much farther ahead Vista is when it comes to environment friendliness. With regards to drivers, sure there were problems when Vista first came out but much of it has or is being rectified. On my latest Vista install (2 weeks ago), it found drivers for my 5 plus year old HP 1220c printer as soon as I plugged the USB cable. I was able to share it (the printer) on my LAN to my other PCs/Laptops running a mixture of Vista and XP Pro in no time. I had no problems with the other peripherals that I plugged into my Vista PCs including Wireless Keyboards and Mice (from Logitech and Microsoft), and portable hard drive (Vantec enclosure). Look and feel is IMO also better and I like having gadgets on the sidebar. I was a big fan of gkrellm on the Linux desktop and with the various gadgets available for the sidebar you can pretty much display the same information you could display on gkrellm... monitor CPU, network activity, monitor hard drive usage, wireless strength, and so on. Bottom line for me is Vista is an improvement over XP especially if you will be running it on a new PC / Laptop.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[linkedlinked]

Thank you!
I've been using Vista for ~2 years on and off [Since pre-beta leaks]. I'm currently dual-booting Gutsy/Vista, and although I love Gutsy, I find myself in Windows most of the time for day-to-day work. I love it.

What really irks me, though, is that some people have the nerve to demand XP back.
I can understand being unhappy. I can understand hating it, and hell, we can even pretend for a minute that it really is garbage.
YOU STILL BOUGHT IT. When was the last time you went to the store, picked up a gallon of chocolate milk, and after drinking half of it, decided you like white milk better, so you _DEMAND_ a free gallon of white milk.
And Microsoft refused to give them free XP? No shit.
Idiocy.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[nowhere.elysium]

Well, while your opinion appears to be balanced and carefully considered (as such, I can't particularly fault it), my main gripes with Vista are from a home-administration point of view.
I had to set up a shared internet connection with Windows Vista for a mate of mine. Naturally, I thought 'I know, ICS has been part of Windows since 98 - I can use that to make this job easy.'
Could I bollocks. ICS just plain failed to work - I followed every method I could find on the web, the Microsoft website, the Windows help text - none of them would resolve the issue. Yes, OK, the internet connection that I was trying to share out was from some sodding Fisher Price-esque cable modem (Thanks, ntl), which obviously doesn't help one bit.
However, ICS actively touts itself as being able to deal with such a connection - check the Microsoft page about it. I ended up using an old Pentium II machine that my friend had scavenged to run Smoothwall, which worked straight off. The only problem that I had with Smoothwall was remembering to set every machine on the network to look at the Smoothwall box for DNS resolution. Other than that, I had precisely no stumbling points at all.
I know comparing a dedicated product to an inbuilt utility isn't a fair test, but nonetheless: I found that a part of the OS that was meant to make life easier only made it harder for everyone involved. I wasted a day tweaking settings in Windows Vista before I decided to take the logical route and build a firewall box. I'm seriously glad that I did, and my friend is glad that he can now throttle back his lodger's torrents, too.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[AmigaMMC]

No, it's more like it's very intrusive and slooooooow even on a powerful machine. I like to follow the old saying "If it's not broken, don't fix it" and Microsoft has done the opposite, they fixed something that was working ok (XP) and now it's worse. It took me forever to figure out a way to get rid of the annoying message that pops up every time you start any kind of application. Yesterday I was transferring my setting from my old laptop to my new tablet with Vista and after 2 hours Vista decided that there was no wireless router nearby (and yet, my other 2 computers with XP were still seeing the router and connected to the internet); it took me an hour and several reboot to finally make it go back to normal operations. The old "repair" on XP is quick and works almost every time, on Vista is complicated and full of useless questions that you don't care for. Start-up is very slow, if was only acceptably faster with the brand new computer before installing anything else. Everywhere there are millions of settings that don't make your life better, just make it more complicated. Hey, don't get me wrong, my first computer was a Commodore 64, I've anything from Vic 20 to SGI Onyx 2 stations and I love tweaking stuff, but I don't see the purpose of this. If it wasn't for the major software that I need I'd be on Linux full time already. Sorry to say, but after one week with Vista I had enough already. I got plenty more but I'd have to sit here all day typing and I don't have the time. My desktop is also new (6 months old now) but on that one I managed to get XP Professional and they gave me a Vista Premium upgrade DVD which I have no plan on using. One annoying OS in the house is enough. Luca

Re:Ok, start the flames

[CastrTroy]

Actually, if you've used vista, you'd see that when you click the start button, there's a tiny power icon that makes it hibernate. If you want to shut it down, what you actually have to do, is click on the even smaller arrow icon beside that, and select shut down. I haven't played around with this a lot, but I haven't seen any options to change what that "power" button does. What was wrong with old system? Where shut down was a full menu item, and when you clicked it, it brought up the options you had.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[typobox43]

There is an option somewhere in the power control panel to change the behavior of that button, but it is admittedly far too well-hidden.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Idaho]

What is so bad about Vista?

Short summary (apart from such issues as pervasive DRM, product craptivation and the like): it's a resource hog, and drivers are lacking. As is the case for 64-bit Windows.

Why are drivers lacking?

Because companies don't write new or updated drivers for outdated, no longer produced and thus unsupported hardware (read: if it's older than a year or maybe two).

Does this sound familiar? Yup, Microsoft finally got themselves into the exact same problems Linux has been having for years.

Except in case of Microsoft, basically nobody (outside of the company producing the hardware) can write a driver, so if there is no working driver you're SOL.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[chocbar31]

I don't know why people don't like it. I've got nothing but great things to say about it. Obviously it's not going to be popular with "people who are highly-appreciative of Linux on the desktop" (to choose my words carefully), or those who don't like Microsoft for any particular reason, or "people who are highly-appreciative of OSX on their Macs" Couldn't perform admin maintenance using active directory tools on domains for months; couldn't install KyoceraMita network printer drivers, which are needed to use the printers on our network...Linux, MAC, WinXP, Win2000, Win98, and even WinME connects to the printers just fine. If helpdesk can't use it, neither will our users. We are switching to thin client technology before upgrading to Vista. Will not purchase systems from our computer vendor that has Vista, nor have they suggested that we use it in our network. Our printer vendors can't use it either, as they pull data from all of their products (paper counts, usage, preventative maintenance) Furthermore, Vista seems more for entertainment than work. Overhauling the desktop infrastructure just to upgrade to Vista not feasible for us. To cut costs for our future, we need products that works. This software giant thinks they are above the laws of the SDLC model; think again!!! Not hatin' on Vista; nor do support or advocate the use of Vista!

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Mantaar]

I had no problems with the other peripherals that I plugged into my Vista PCs including Wireless Keyboards and Mice (from Logitech and Microsoft), and portable hard drive (Vantec enclosure).
I'm sorry, but how can you possibly judge hardware compatibility of an operating system on that basis? Human Input Devices that talk to your computer via USB (as most do today) use a generic protocol that is supported by virtually every operating system that supports USB - even Plan 9. The same goes for external hard drives and the like.

That said, I always wondered why in the nine hells my mice work immediately after plugging them in in Linux, Mac OS X and *BSD, but XP took about 30 seconds to install a "driver"...

I only had brief contact with Vista when one of my users got a new PC with Vista pre-loaded. He gave up after two weeks and "downgraded" to XP. One of the astounding things is Vista's printing capabilities: Our network printer works over ipp and we have a mixed environment: Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, WinXP and 2k, Solaris - everyone can print without issues... Enter Vista. There are no Vista drivers for this printer and it's not likely that there ever will be some, because it's a model only sold in certain parts of Europe - it never gained popularity. It's hard to find any page on the Net that offers drivers for this specific model.
However, using CUPS, all variants and versions of *BSD, Linux and Mac OS X and Solaris that we have running can talk to the printer using the same printer driver (.ppd file).

How does one Windows driver not work with all versions of Windows then? It's a printer driver. And it's supposed to address the printer with ipp! I just can't understand that...

That's the only things I have to say about Vista. I never used it, so I will not comment on anything else. But somehow I'm really happy not to be forced to use it. I left the Windows-world a while ago and the last Windows I actively used was 2k. 2k never managed to cleanly resume from suspend... version 2.6.23 of the Linux kernel however (pretty new) really shows nice behavior and the Laptop I use during my daily work--home commuting has a current uptime of about three days - with estimated 25+ suspend/resume cycles. Let's see how far we can push that uptime...

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a huge enough improvement over XP to warrant all the re-training you have to do (common stuff being called by different names in Vista, located in a different place, so you have to hunt down familiar options), a lot of niche apps people "need" to run are incompatible, it's like moving to a different OS for your average user.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget to say hi to your MS managers on the way into work and mention how you defended them on slashdot :}

Re:Ok, start the flames

[10101001 10101001]

What really irks me, though, is that some people have the nerve to demand XP back.
I can understand being unhappy. I can understand hating it, and hell, we can even pretend for a minute that it really is garbage.
YOU STILL BOUGHT IT. When was the last time you went to the store, picked up a gallon of chocolate milk, and after drinking half of it, decided you like white milk better, so you _DEMAND_ a free gallon of white milk.

If you bought a new car and it was garbage, would you return it for your money back? How about if it was a new TV? When you buy a $5 gallon of milk, you're not exactly going to be using that milk for months/years, nor is that $5 spent much of a real investment--you'll just buy another brand next time.

If you really want to go with a milk analogy, a better analogy would be if a dairy company offered you a discount plan; you pay upfront for 40 weeks of Milk+ (TM) and you get 52 weeks worth of Milk+ (TM). Now, what if Milk+ (TM) tastes horrible? Well, beyond asking for a refund, if the dairy company offers basically the same plan but with milk (that you know is good) instead of Milk+ (TM) and you need milk/Milk+ (TM), wouldn't you consider asking first to switch over the plan*? Especially if the diary company is notorious for being a huge hassle to get a refund on their dairy discount plans?

In short, if no one ever demanded their money back when they felt they were defrauded, either there'd be a lot more legal action by governments or there would be serious economic instability as a result of people being much more hesitant on making large purchases, as there would be no recourse if it turned out the good wasn't nearly worth the asking price.

*Yes, asking for a free XP CD isn't exactly the same thing. But, then, I doubt most the consumers have a Vista CD to swap for an XP CD; rather, if the even have a CD at all, it's likely a recovery CD. So, the whole situation is a huge headache that should really go through the OEM. But, that'd mean the OEM would have to get permission from MS to swap out XP for Vista for individual consumers, possibly refunding the difference (or sink the cost themselves and buy two licenses for every machine). Of course, all of this is why the consumer group recommends avoiding Vista completely and going with XP. Vista might be better for some people, but it's easier to just go with XP (which is known to work) and avoid the possible risks.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Anonymous Coward]

What is so bad about Vista? I have not used it yet. I've seen it, and I know some people that are using it and they don't complain about it. What's the deal? Is it just that it's new?

There's nothing wrong with it, people are just habitual whiners.

A majority of the "problems" with it aren't even, technically, Vista issues: they are third-party software issues. You had just about every hardware vendor drop the ball on writing Vista drivers, because they all assumed it would be exactly like XP. Which, of course, is the exact thing they did with Windows XP was brand new, and they assumed it would would be exactly like Windows NT.

Then you have idiots like McAfee and Norton, who claim they can't write a proper virus scanner without access to the source code (which must mean they've never written a proper virus scanner, seeing as how they've never had access to ANY Windows source code). Which again illustrates why Kaspersky is the best virus scanner on the market, because they were 100% Vista compatible the day Vista was released. And Norton and McAfee were not.

Then there are all the junk apps people load (as well as PC vendors), which obviously aren't any good either. And, as I said, none of that has anything to do with Vista.

All the complaints about Vista are around for the same thing the FUD about Windows' security is (even though it's far and away more secure than OSX or Lunix), and of course that old chestnut about getting Blue Screens every 15 minutes. The fact of the matter is (and the numbers support it), once Windows moved off the Win95 code base and onto the WinNT code base, it's been the most stable operating system out there. In fact, now that Windows is SO secure, we are seeing all the hackers moving to the softer targets of OSX and Lunix. Just this month there was a huge article about how Ubuntu machines make up a majority of botnets, and early this year was the Month of Apple Bugs (even though security experts already knew every month was a MoAB).

The complaints are around for the same reason Sun and IBM are buying out teh Lunix: it's simply a convenient bat to hit Microsoft with it. And as is typical of Slashdot, the truth can be damned... and when the truth is on Microsoft's side, the truth IS damned.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been using windows exclusively since windows 95, and let me tell you why I will not use vista: the GUI is not as snappy as XP. I dont care what the usability studies say, a properly tweaked 2000 or xp machine is as snappy as a GUI can physically get with zero delays for anything and the crispest, most perfected mouse control lets me hit the Xes and system menus every time on the first try. I am GOOD with windows, man, and if I may be so bold, I think I am a glory to behold using it.

Protip: you wont notice any of this if you use a laggy lcd or mushy mouse. If youve been using vista on a modern system, for a real treat, get a low quality optical mouse and a CRT set to 85+ hz and marvel at the snap you've been missing for the past few years.

95 to 2000 to xp -- things kept getting marginally better for me. New features, more stability. I dig it. But MOST IMPORTANTLY--I am effective and utterly efficient in it. And then I try vista--and it is not as snappy. Even tweaked back to classic theme, it is not as snappy as xp.

Inexplicably slow alt-tabbing. Newer, slower explorer. Now I can't click in the empty space beside an item to unselect, as it accidentally selects that item. We all know about the slow file copy. How about the slower security menu that has to reset your display and show you a non-conventional UI without alphabetic hotkeys for the menu items? The first time you encounter an uncancelable ping will make you boil over in fury.

Oh, and what happened to separate tray icon displays for each network adapter? They all spill into one in vista. Whose idea was that?

Sure vista is pretty, and its even pretty fast if youve got new hardware. But let me tell you a secret: it will never be as fast as xp unless you put it back in classic mode, and even then, due to the flaws mentioned above--and many more--it will still never be as fast as xp. Vista is slow and totally trips up a professional user. Microsoft did not think through the small things when they made vista. Death by thousand cuts is why I refuse vista.

The gall of microsoft to inflict this on me, who contributes so much to their ecosystem, in a faint effort to amuse the smallminded masses, is unbearable. They thought I wouldn't notice? They thought I wouldn't care? If you sacrificed _anything_ for the drm or aero, you FAILED.

Thus I use my power to teach microsoft a lesson by preventing anyone whose PCs I support from buying vista. And refusing to support vista if theyre foolish enough to get a machine with it preinstalled.

We can turn this thing around, all of us, if we work together. First, admit there is a problem. Next, take some action. You know you like the one head at Microsoft that makes badass stuff, even if the other head that thrashes around the industry and world causes you no end of heartache. Its hard sometimes but you love it anyway. Do a favor for the one you love, and run an intervention--refuse vista.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Anonymous Coward]

>I use Vista at work on my Dell.
>It runs all the software I want (Adobe stuff, apache, mysql, games, iTunes, etc.),

i smell BS unless your employers are idiots

Re:Ok, start the flames

[dave420]

That's very fair and deserved criticism. It is pretty ridiculous that ICS wasn't working correctly, but then that's no great surprise - ICS always has been somewhat flakey, with strange problems that defy definition or correction. That is definitely something they should fix. The routing and remote access service seems to be one that doesn't play well with others.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[synoniem]

Well, this consumergroup received thousands of complaints about Vista. Microsoft already allowed business users to downgrade to XP and De Consumentenbond want that for the private users too. After Microsoft denying this they could expects this action despite their hastily constructed website with additional information gathered from everywhere on their different sites.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[suv4x4]

All the eye-candy is performed on the GPU, and the talk about it being DRM-with-a-GUI is nonsense - it performs perfectly as a media player, with astounding video quality (thanks to everything being rendered through Direct3D, and real emphasis placed on media quality).

When you call your opposition's opinion nonsense, it pays not to spew out nonsense yourself.

Pray tell, how on Earth does rendering through Direct3D improve video quality? I use media player classic which has all modes of rendering, ranging from overlay through Direct 2D, 3D, Open GL and so on.

It's impossible to tell which one you're using without peeking in the settings.

Oh wait, I know, it's the soft shadow behind the player. Makes the explosion sequences that much better, just like that flames sticker made your computer faster.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[dave420]

Good point about the hardware. I thought the DirectX 10 VMR was supposed to be of better quality and efficiency than using the overlay?

The memory useage is indeed far improved over that of XP. That seems to be something they've really worked at. The speed that applications start up is a great indicator of that.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a pain to install and get running because it lacks a lot of drivers. For administrative functions, it keeps asking over and over again. And the user interface has gotten less intuitive, and is a weird mix of new and old style windows. The whole thing seems rather cobbled together.

Is it an awful OS? No. And under the hood, there is some useful new functionality. But it's arguably worse than XP in just about every regard that users care about.

However, instead of going back to XP, why not install Linux? Modern versions of Linux beat Vista in just about every way.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Anonymous Coward]

Vista came preinstalled on my laptop. With 512 MB, Vista is seriously not even useable. I attempted to turn off everything I could, and it still thrashed the hard drive to the point where the computer was unusable. I added memory, but still it was slower than my other laptop with half the memory.

That is why I don't like Vista. Sure, if you have 3 GB of RAM, it probably works great, but needed double the memory for no real benefit just doesn't make sense to me.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no problem with pre-installed VISTA. Some people have had problems moving XP installations to VISTA because of drivers and/or low system resources.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Maelwryth]

I dunno about the rest of the world,
but the first time I installed Vista/Live One Care it got a virus,
the second time it got a bug in explorer and crashed/restarted constantly,
the third time it got a virus,
the fourth time it updated the driver on the NIC which then stopped working and was impossible to roll back,
the fifth time it was fine and since I keep it off the internet and only for playing games, hopefully it will stay that way. The only problem I had with it after that was grub not booting it properly and that was a simple fix and nothing to do with Vista.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Heembo]

I use Vista at work on my Dell [...] It runs all the software I want (Adobe stuff, apache, mysql, games, iTunes, etc.)
WTF are you doing playing games at work, where do you work, and are you hiring? PS: I need FEAR and CRYSIS right now, can those be pre-loaded into my workstation before I start working for you?

Re:Ok, start the flames

[HiThere]

You're probably right (thanks to your careful choice of words). When I was a MSWind user, I found it fairly trivial to move from version to version, except when I was trying to tinker deeply. It was also, however, easy for me to move to the Mac. Linux, at that time, required a lot move investment of time and energy. (I did it because of the EULAs, which I found insupperable.)

OTOH, I am not a typical end user. I'm a programmer. I know many people who needed to be trained to move from MSwind95 to MSWind98. And they aren't necessarily stupid, they just have interests in different areas, so they don't have the same kind of model of computers that I do. Their model tends to be spatial...and if you shuffle the icons on their desktop, it bothers them until they memorize the new layout. It can be a real problem trying to teach them to use the find command. They just don't get the idea that what's being matched are character strings, not words or phrases. (The MSWind95 find command breaks the match pattern at each space and returns the union of matches.)

Don't presume that just because something is easy for you, that it's easy for any intelligent person. Not until you've brushed a resisting dog's teeth. (Unfair. That one often calls for a general anesthetic. That was a trick question to show also that just because something sounds easy doesn't mean it is.) Try this one then: Knap a stone arrowhead and fasten it to a shaft using only naturally available materials. It's GOT to be easy, because it's one of the first technologies that our species mastered. But just TRY. My arrowheads kept cutting the bindings, even though I used the material that Ishi recommended as the absolute best starting material. (Milk bottle glass. You may have to search for it these days...and they may have changed the composition. Obsidian is a nearly equivalent substitute.) I suppose that the problem was that I didn't have any raw guts to use as the binding cord, but I don't even know that THAT's the problem. And this HAS to be a problem with a trivial solution.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[suv4x4]

What is so bad about Vista? I have not used it yet. I've seen it, and I know some people that are using it and they don't complain about it. What's the deal? Is it just that it's new?

The reason isn't simple. Anyone giving you one single reason so many people reject Vista would be silly. Here are few:

- yes it's new, means back compat issues with software hardware
- eats lots of resources and delivers little for it (comparable Linus/OSX interfaces run on lesser GFX chips and deliver faster responce... why this is, no clue, let's hope Vista SP2 fixes it)
- no direction, GUI chaos, feature chaos

The latter is a bigger problem than one can imagine, since it's not one that solves itself with bugfixes and time.

Vista clearly lacks focus and lacks central philosophy behind its GUI. We see that a huge team worked on this OS, but no one gave them a single set of rules to work behind. Everyone just had its own idea how to change the Windows experience and simply went for it without regard to the rest of the OS.

Last time we talked someone said "but typing to find apps is so much faster than menus! I hate the whiners that don't like vista's start menu".

Right. So if typing is so much better, how come they converted the Explorer address bar from *hinted typing* to *menus* in vista (you need to right-click, then deselect, and then you can finally double-click a segment to retype).

Or maybe the Start menu exists in a universe of its own from Explorer.

The Control Panel is entirely unpredictable. It starts like a web page, but half of the features pop-up the old XP control panel applets, with the other tabs disabled (or not disabled.. again, all this is random).

Unhiding hidden files, which is what many people do, causes two "desktop.ini" files on the Desktop (they had the sense not to show those in XP and before!).

So, basically stuff like that. It's not crucial, you can do your work, but it's a *lesser* experience, it's a pain, and goes against you, for no good reason than "I'm new, buy me". And why go for the lesser experience, when you can go for the better experience, which is XP?

So there. Now Microsoft will have to weight both sides: can they admit failure and fix Vista, or keep demanding it's just fine, but we need to get used to it?

I really wish they fix Vista, but they don't give a sign of doing this so far though. SP1 will build on performance and stability features, which is great, but they only fix couple of UI issues.

Maybe SP2 is where they will do it. We'll see.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[mickwd]

"It does "use" a lot of resources, but it does so intelligently. If it wants to use up all my memory, it does so to improve performance, and if applications need it, it is relinquished."

Am I the only to whom this particular bit just sounds like marketing-speak?

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Stamen]

I think the thing people have to understand, is there are different types of users who are using Vista. And those different type of users can have entirely different opinions, and they can all be correct. For example, if you're a home user, you may be using Vista and loving it. But many people, here on /. especially, work in IT departments, and when they complain about Vista it is for reasons that a home user would never experience. There is a reason that hardly any company is supporting Vista, internally, at this time; and it isn't because they hate Microsoft or are Mac fan-boys.

Then there are other users like me, who are developers, and Vista causes a lot of troubles with legacy applications; and in the real world most applications are legacy. I personally spent a few months fixing Vista related problems for a client, and after that experience I have a pretty poor view of Vista. It's not that Microsoft made bad decisions on what to add to Vista, it's that they implemented them poorly.

For a company that has that much money, and that many engineers, what they came up, after 5 years, just wasn't good enough. There are choices now on the Desktop, and there have always been choices on the server. Now is not a good time for Microsoft to produce an OS that is "OK".

Re:Ok, start the flames

[dave420]

When you move the window when the video is playing, the video does not tear or "lag" behind the window's position. Also, you get to see the video on alt-tabbing, and even in the task bar's application view (not to mention Flip 3D). The quality is not necessarily from the rendering mode chosen, but from how that application is displayed in the GUI. Video playback is excellent in XP - with a decent copy of FFDShow and decent drivers, however video playback seems to not be as tightly integrated into the GUI. Also, the multimedia priority stuff they've stuck in there makes it harder for anything on the computer to screw with playback. It's all about perception, I guess.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[dave420]

It's called "relaxing", and happens sometimes during the day and sometimes when I work late :) Currently I'm enjoying the new UT3, CoD4 demo, and both UT2004 and CoD2.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[linkedlinked]

The fallacy in your argument lies in your assertion that "people feel defrauded" by Vista, or rather, that they have a right to "feel defrauded" by Vista. Vista is EXACTLY what was promised. It works the same as [or better than] the betas, the RCs, it works like every product description says. Every program I had running on XP now runs on Vista. Every movie I have plays on Vista. Every part of the operating system works as advertised. People just didn't know what they were buying. And that's the consumer's fault, not Microsoft's.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[dave420]

It sounds like "the truth" :) Vista pre-loads commonly-used applications into memory so when you want them, you can run them quickly. If an application needs that memory, it is handed over to the application, so it doesn't mess with that application. It's a great idea. Applications do load ridiculously fast, and the hard disk isn't used as much as on other OSs I've used. What's the point of having 4GB of ram and only having a bit of it used at any one time? If the rest can be used to speed up tasks, and freed when needed, everyone wins.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[dave420]

I hear you. I'm a developer, but as I develop web applications, Vista is a good thing for me (as IE7 is far superior to IE6). I think Vista is a good step forward for home and office workers alike. It offers a new slew of features to speed up using a computer, such as its intelligent caching, being able to use flash memory as intermediate memory, support for hybrid drives, sideshow, etc. As we're currently seeing with multiple-core CPUs, these new technological advances take time for folks to adjust to, and when they're present and not being used, they do indeed cause problems. I'm thinking that when this stuff has been used more, it's only going to get quicker, and impressively so.

And as for choices on the desktop, if you want to play games and use Adobe software, there are none :)

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Das Modell]

Vista is extremely slow, bloated and difficult to use, and generally a fucking pain in the ass. User Access Control is the best invention ever: Vista will prompt you twice for confirmation if you rename a file you created, and turning off UAC is suprisingly difficult (having a billion different icons in the Control Panel really doesn't help anyone). Vista also has poor software and hardware support.

My mother, who knows nothing about computers and only uses her Vista laptop for surfing, has on two occasions somehow managed to make Vista suggest a complete reset of the system where all personal files are deleted and the computer is reset to its original post-install state (as if you're starting it for the first time). The second time it occured Vista went ahead with the reset even though my mom chose not to do it (I advised her over the phone). It blatantly ignored the user's selection. Why does such a feature exist in Vista, and how in the nine hells can normal everyday usage (turn on, log in, surf web, shut down) cause Vista to effectively self-destruct? What a fucking joke. I'll install XP on that laptop or die trying.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Hafnia]

It's just slow ..... thats it !

Re:Ok, start the flames

[FyRE666]

I had to "upgrade" to Vista from Win2k a few months ago as I need to test dhtml/css with IE7, and it was a toss up between XP and Vista. What a mistake that was - even with the UAC, both firewalls(!?), search indexing all disabled along with numerous other useless processes, it still performs noticable slower than Win2k - WMP is a real crock of shit - blurry on practically any video, absence of codecs, and VERY CPU hungry. I actually had to buy new hardware as it was so annoying. The worse thing though, that really really pisses me off is the fact it keeps MOVING THE FUCKING ICONS AROUND ON MY DESKTOP between (re)boots! Why does it do it? Who knows - sometimes it also decides to change the resolution from 1920x1200 to 1600x1200 for no apparent reason when it starts up.

But the icon thing is the worst by a long way... If there was any way I could trade Vista home premium in against XP, I'd do it in a flash!

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Anonymous Coward]

To answer your question, absolutely nothing apart from lack of driver support, not entirely unlike the lack of driver support for XP in the transition from Win 98se.

The naysayers are out in force, of course, but this is only to be expected.

As you said, "start the flames". No doubt, this will produce the standard spewing from the non-ms fanboi club.

I'm typing now on my gf's new laptop - which came with Vista. I have to say, I've had no more (in fact less) problems with this thing than with any XP machine I've ever worked on. It's fast enough, stable enough (it hasn't been rebooted in a fortnight), and seems pretty solid to me.

I've been in this game and worked on many os's since the 70's, so I'm not exactly a n00b. My advice (if MS is your flavour of OS for any reason) would be to go head and try it. As long as you haven't got any unusual hardware (or a shitty manufacturer who's sat back for the past what, 2 years, and not developed drivers) you shouldn't have too much trouble. As usual, of course, you've got the usual increase in hardware requirements to contend with - but if you have at least a gig and a reasonably fast HD you'll be just fine. Ignore the lunatic fringe's foaming at the mouth, and give it a try.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Anonymous Coward]

What is so bad about Vista? I have not used it yet. I've seen it, and I know some people that are using it and they don't complain about it. What's the deal? Is it just that it's new? Well, Vista shares many issues with Linux:

1) It's different
2) Lack of drivers
3) Software compatibility

These hurt Linux adoption, especially #1, and also hurt Vista. Vista also has these:

4) Freaking slow
5) Extremely annoying security prompts
6) DRM everywhere
7) Annoying activation

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Anonymous Coward]

can I interest you in some reasonably priced prozac or xanax?

Re:Ok, start the flames

[SEMW]

Actually, I do use Vista, and you can change what the power button does in Power Options.

Also, even if you never use the button and just use the menu every time, it's still no more clicks than XP (3: XP -- Start, Turn Off Computer, Shut Down; Vista -- Start, arrow, Shut Down).

BTW, alt+F4 with the desktop selected brings up the old 2000-style shut down dialogue.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[ciggieposeur]

OK, so you LOVE Windows but hate Vista, and you want to send a message to Microsoft to give you a Windows with the features you want in it.

But what if Microsoft doesn't do it? What if Vista SP1 is still just as slow/unfriendly/whatever as Vista, or maybe even more so?

What are your real options?

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Eivind]

My wife got vista for her new laptop half a year back. She didn't know any better. (neither did I, I'd have opted for Ubuntu, but I honestly wasn't aware that Vista is so horribly much more annoying than XP as it is.) (as if XP ain't annoying enough: Wanna reboot now, or should I nag you again in 3 minutes ?)

• It asks for "confirmation" in literally hundreds of everyday situations. This adds nothing to security, because inside of the first week everyone gets used to automatically click "yes, do it, go away, let me -use- the damn computer, stop nagging me damn it" (the option says something else, but this is what people thing, aproximately)
• it lacks support for bog-standard 2 year old mainstream hardware. Much worse than Linux has been on the hardware front lately. For example, our bog-standard scanner doesn't work, a driver is promised "in 2008", this is a scanner from 2005. One that sold 700.000. Same for our laserprinter, though there it's possible to have it work halfway by using a driver which exist for a smaller model. This loses the functionality lacking in that smaller model though (such as the duplex-unit)
• The backwards compatibility for games suck. This matters, since more games is one of the sole remaining advantages for Windows over the competition at this point. Heroes of M&M IV works, but is buggy, especially the network-support. Capitalism II doesn't even start. SC3K seems to be working, sorta, it's hard to say, the palette is messed up, something I ain't seen on linux since X11 used to run in 8-bit palette-modus...
• It's a resource hog. The laptop of my Wife is a Core-2-duo, 2GB ram and decent graphics. Should be more than adequate. Isn't. It's -swapping- as I write this very moment, There's no programs open other than FF which eats 112MB, if we believe Vista, and Thunderbird which eats 87MB. Don't ask me why it's swapping under these circumstances, but it is.
• Java-support sucks. Yeah, that's probably partly a sun-issue. But Eclipse, under the same version of the same JVM crashed regularily on Vista, never experienced that on XP or Linux or Panther.
• "Fast user switching" is a joke. The -fast- part particularily. ctrl+alt+F8 takes how long on Linux ? A second ? In vista, you click on switch user. It then spins for 10 seconds (with the aforementioned powerful laptop), it then displays a login-prompt. Where you can log in a second user, and in another 10 seconds or so you're good to go. This rigamarole repeats itself on each switch. That's rigth, even if both users are logged in, you still need to wait for the login-screen to load, then click on the user you want to switch to and enter the password. Half a minute for switching a user ain't fast in my book....
• It still doesn't have any of the neat stuff that unix invented in the 70ies. Ok, so maybe I shouldn't have been hoping for that, but it's still a mystery. "shortcuts" are still a hack in the shell and don't universally work like symlinks and hardlinks have for literally 30 years in unix... Disks are still managed with "drive letters", and you've got no way to say move a directory from C: to D: and have the move be transparent to the user.
• It still can't manage to move, rename, delete or in some cases even -read- a file if some other program has the file open. All of this stuff actually worked, literally, in the 70ies on unix.

The biggest problem though ? There is not a -single- actually relevant improvement from a user-perspective. Not one. Lots of drawbacks, no advantages. Oh, I'm sure they're there allrigth. But how splendid are they really, if the user doesn't even -notice- them in the first half-year of use ?

At this point my wife would swap Vista for XP in a heartbeat. Hell, she'd swap it for Windows-98 if given the chance.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[10101001 10101001]

The fallacy in your argument lies in your assertion that "people feel defrauded" by Vista, or rather, that they have a right to "feel defrauded" by Vista.

we can even pretend for a minute that [Vista] really is garbage.
YOU STILL BOUGHT IT.

The GGP created a context. I argued within that context, under the assumption Vista was garbage (ie, it failed to live up to its description/reasonable expectations given its description) and was sold to some people. That would be fraud. Those people would be defrauded. People in that circumstance could feel defrauded. And there'd be a sound basis to demand redress for harm because for no one to do so would lead to significant economic harm (among other things). Is that clear?

Vista is EXACTLY what was promised.

I'm not entirely sure what was promised for Vista (beyond, of course, the newsworthy feature removals that occurred prior to release), so I can't argue on this point.

It works the same as [or better than] the betas, the RCs,

I can't really argue with that. But, the issue at hand is how well Vista works in comparison to XP, not in comparison to beta versions of itself. I will admit, however, that I don't recall hearing Microsoft specifically state that Vista would have any XP backwards compatability, so perhaps any assumption that Vista can run any Win32/Win64 application is entirely invalid.

it works like every product description says.

Given that the official Vista feature list is 60MB+ big and seems to only work in Vista, I can't readily take Microsoft's word to quote. But, if you wish to include every product description:

"Delivers all of the entertainment features available in Windows Vista Home Premium; includes everything you need to enjoy the latest in digital photography, music, movies, analog TV, or even HDTV" -- Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate

Now, given people are having trouble with their sound cards, requiring the d/l of sound card drivers (if they exist), I'd say it doesn't include everything needed to enjoy music.

Every program I had running on XP now runs on Vista. Every movie I have plays on Vista. Every part of the operating system works as advertised.

If that's the case for you, that's great. But that doesn't make it true for everyone.

People just didn't know what they were buying.

Why do you believe this is the case? Are the product descriptions not descriptive enough? Is it reasonable impossible to properly describe all things properly in English? Is there a gap in Microsoft's marketing that fails to provide people who want information the information they desire? Or are people just too lazy and stupid to bother doing the research? Btw, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here and assuming no form of fraud.

And that's the consumer's fault, not Microsoft's.

Well, it's nice to know it's the consumer's fault. How did you reach that conclusion? Did you hand out a test? Are you someone who does support who is aware of all the publicly available information? Is your conclusion based on the anecdotal data of you (and possibly some friends)?

Re:Ok, start the flames

[harmlessdrudge]

Try doing something very simple: relocate your folders to another drive (to facilitate backup). You will now not be able to add to your favorites when using a web browser. There's LOTS more. Really LOTS. My advice is to do what I'm doing and start running Ubuntu in parallel. The moment Microsoft sues any Linux vendor is the moment I go cold turkey. Which is to say, giving up Microsoft instantly. The temperature of the cold turkey that I might have to endure is increasing all the time. Microsoft knows this, so Windows XP SP3 will be an attempt to buy a little more time. Strategically, however, Microsoft is manufacturing valves after the invention of the transistor.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[The Infamous Grimace]

I recently received a laptop as a gift with Vista installed. Maybe it's just me and my machine, but it seems I'm constantly having to give UAC permission to do this or that. In addition, browsing is SLOW. Don't know what it is, but web page load times sometimes run into minutes. I created a new partion, and loaded Ubuntu. It was a pain to get the proper vid card and wireless drivers installed, but now I'm quite satisfied. I've even toyed with Compiz-Fusion.

Anyways, I'm going to see if I can exchange the Vista disks for XP.

(tig)

Re:Ok, start the flames

[linkedlinked]

Your arguments are mostly valid, but you seem to be struggling with something- It's not my job to *prove* that Vista was everything promised. On the contrary, it's the job of the consumers in question to prove that Vista was less-than-promised, if they want to deem it "faulty" and that they were "defrauded."
My point is that they haven't. There's no proof, beyond your lacking* sound driver argument that Vista has failed to deliver on any premise.

*We can all agree that it's silly to expect any operating system to come with drivers for all hardware configurations by default. Or were you expecting SPARC support in Vista, too?

Re:Ok, start the flames

[xhrit]

>And as for choices on the desktop, if you want to play games and use Adobe software, there are none :)

You are wrong. I play games and use Adobe software all the time, and I run linux.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[asc99c]

There are hundreds of little niggles. The biggest one for me which can be purely blamed on Microsoft is that to do almost every action I want to do, I have to click more buttons than XP. Almost every settings screen has been simplified, and the useful settings are always one or two more screens away, because each screen has far fewer items. The new start menu looks kinda nice, but because it's fixed size, I have to scroll around to find the stuff I want, where in XP, it takes up as much space as required.

It looks to me like they've tried to take a page out of Apple's book, and have simple pretty screens you can just use. Problem is, Apple generally seems to think of the use-cases and have the stuff I want to use right there in front of me. Vista just has a simple pretty screen, but the button I want isn't there. It's hidden on a Related Items link and then in the advanced settings.

Secondly, whatever changes they've made to the way Windows works appear to have mostly broken almost every 'Remote Desktop' type of program - except Remote Desktop itself of course. I can't get Remote Desktop to reliably work from XP to Vista, so I can only use remote access from another Vista machine. I've found Ultra VNC is runnable, but with user access control on, every time a UAC dialog pops up, it kills all remote connections. I have to reconnect, click 'OK' on the UAC dialog, and then the connection is killed again. If you turn off UAC, the machine will no longer respond to Ctrl-Alt-Delete from a remote connection.

Final big problem is sleep mode. The behaviour on my work PC changes with each Windows Update, but half the time, my work PC goes to sleep overnight (even though set to always on). It is then completely unwakeable - in the morning, I have to unplug it and reboot from scratch. I do out-of-hours support and as some client's networks are only visible from within the work network (i.e. not even from a VPN) I've had to drive to the office as a result of this. I've now got a Linux box to stay on overnight and generally do a whole load of stuff that Vista just won't do.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[MattyCobb]

The bad thing about Vista is the number of FUD and silly articles it continues to generate. Some would say if you don't like it, don't use it, and move on... clearly they are not in the majority. As for what people rant about? Same thing as XP, but people forget so quickly. It gets put on PCs that run it like crap (just like those XP rigs with 128mb of ram back when XP was new) and like/dislike of the new look. People also talk about how it is infested with DRM though I have never figured out what that actually means. I guess the ability to play DRM protected content is now = to DRM. None of my media is protected by such junk and I am on Vista. But yeah that sums up Vista. Lots of whining, not much reason :( I keep hoping it will pass, but no luck so far.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[CastrTroy]

Yes, same number of button clicks, but the targets are smaller.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[schizoid4]

What is so bad about Vista?

Wrong question. You should be asking "What's so bad about XP that it must be discontinued in favor of a new OS that people don't like as much?"

New Coke wasn't rejected because it was horrible. It was rejected because people liked old Coke better.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[clowds]

It might just be me but here are the problems I've had in my 4 months of using Vista from my uni MSDNA.

• Slow network speed - Vista ftp to my server starts at 1 meg a second (wireless g) and drops until it hits a fairly stable 250 ish k/s. If I boot up into XP, or OpenSuse, this number stays up at 800k/s or more. This is also true for copying directly through explorer on my samba drive where I usually sit at (according to the box) about 80 k/s on Vista.
• Sound problems - I cannot for the life of me get 5.1 channel sound working, and even though quadraphonic is enabled and supposedly works (each speaker plays in the test) I cannot hear anything through them from any 5.1 movies or games. (Using crappy onboard)
• Vista UAC would ask for permission EVERY time i tried to rename, move or edit a file in an external hard drive. UAC would also cause amsn received files to be unaccesible even though the folder had the files in it. Turned off within 4 days.
• Program compatibility - Quickbooks and Gnucash will not work on Vista. Quickbooks will crash every time I try to accept the license no matter what compatibility I run it in. These are important programs to me.
• Many programs and games will crash upon closing - when I close a game or program, there's a rather large chance of it crashing and throwing a "This program has crashed, - look online for a fix or close it box". Highly annoying
• Entire windows will freeze sometimes when copying files over the network. Mapped network samba drives do not remember the username and password and keep trying to shove the computer name in front of my username.
• Control panel is an absolute MESS to navigate, took me hours to try and show hidden files and weekly cannot find the add/remove programs. Vista explorer navigation also painful, where is my UP arrow dammit. Also, explorer path shortening extremely painful when in two similarly named folders, one on server, one on my computer.

That's my list for the short time I've been using it. Now this isn't a hatefest, because I love the new taskbar and some of the aero features like program thumbnails and the alt-tabbing. I detest the start menu and the constant dissapearing of links (my office 2003 links dissapeared for no apparent reason). The search function is shoddy at best trying to find programs. "word" got me nothing, had to type winword, real intelligent. I'm quite happy with XP and Stardock themes to be honest and opensuse fills the void for everything non gaming so I'm a happy little camper for the timebeing.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Stamen]

And as for choices on the desktop, if you want to play games and use Adobe software, there are none Um, Adobe's products were Mac only for a long time, then they ported them to Windows much later (most professional graphic artists, and designers, are still on Macs because of this). So you hardly need Windows to run Adobe applications. As for games, there are games for Linux, and much more for Mac, but it's true that Windows is the primary platform on the computer; but truly with a HD PS 3 for $500, this matters less and less all the time.

Macs also have Microsoft Office, another misconception I hear all the time, "I can't use a Mac, because I need Word", [sigh]. I guess it's only natural for people to think what they are familiar with is the only thing that exists. I'm old enough to remember when 90% of the market was Novell servers and Wordperfect for word processing. To suggest, at that time, that people will be using Windows and Microsoft Office would get you laughs from everyone in the office. Times, change, don't be like those people who held onto Wordperfect long after Office took over, otherwise people like me will be taking your job.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[wolferz]

COME THE FACK ON! WTF? This is so fricken out of hand.

The worst thing about Vista (other than DRM) is compatibility issues. That is its number one problem and guess what? Right now there are very few "mainstream" programs left which aren't fully compatible with Vista.

I've been using Vista off and on since it came out. In march it reached a point were with my skill set as a computer repair tech I could handle the issues that cropped up day to day. It is now October and I haven't had to "fix" anything in over 2 months. All the software I use including Firefox, Nero, Alcohol 52%, Adobe Photoshop CS2, Adobe Acrobat 8 Pro, Adobe Flash CS3, uTorrent, Winamp 5, Zoom Player Pro, mIrc, Winrar, Trillian Astra and Trillian 3 Pro, FileZilla, Last.fm, Quick Time, Steam (and all associated games that do not require dosbox emulation), Avast! AV for Home, and VMWare Workstation are working perfectly. All the hardware in my machine is fully enabled via manufactures drivers EXCEPT my Razer Barracuda sound card (which is odd because Razer is pretty much the only company with a sound card product who isn't capable of fully supporting Vista... if only I didn't hate creative so much). The only program which is still not fully functioning for me is dosbox (works under 32bit but not 64bit).

Let's address the other common complaints one at a time:

1: The price.
This is certainly a very legitimate concern for those who are upgrading their computers or building a new one. If you purchased Vista through an OEM then you paid about 15 dollars for Vista (how do YOU think dell offers a $300 dollar computer when XP/Vista OEM alone is $150 bux). For those who don't wish to spend so much on Vista for your new computer/upgrade you have many options. If you're upgrading: don't. At this time very few people NEED to upgrade (I needed to in order to learn Vista and get to know its quirks so I wouldn't look like a monkey doing a math problem when I need to fix a Vista computer), and upgrading your OS without upgrading your hardware is almost always a bad idea. For those building a new computer, its not hard to get a down and dirty cheap OEM copy of Vista on ebay, or you can purchase from any of a number of outlets that wont question whether or not you are a licensed OEM if the OEM copy is bought along side a mother board (newegg for example). Besides, if you know enough about computers to build one then you shouldnt need vistas spiffy new security model or easier interface anyway (and honestly no one NEEDS 64bit support). There are more, but I think you get the idea.

2: There is no significant difference between Vista and XP.
If 1 is the difference between Windows 2k (no SP) and Windows 2k (still no SP) and 10 is the difference between Windows 2k (no SP) and Windows XP (no SP). On a scale of 1 to 10 Vista is around a 15 compaired to Windows XP (no SP). For starters not much ever changes from one operating system to another. The difference between Windows 95 and Windows 98 was that windows 98 had better driver support, increased stability, and support for larger file systems (which was added to 95 in the osr2 version). The difference between Windows 98 and Windows ME was improved interface design and organization, removal of the legacy DOS environment as a base for Windows, and a massive increase in bugs. The difference between Windows ME and Windows 2k (which is rather trivial any way since they were released along side each other) is the more stable NT kernel, the improved performance, and some of the worst multi-media capabilities to grace a Windows OS since Windows 3.11 (but then again 2k was never meant for multimedia). The difference between Windows 2k and Windows XP was improved driver handling, better memory management, a vastly better organized user interface, and working multi-media support (and no security was not worse in XP than 2k... for those that weren't paying attention spyware/adware didn't really catch on till 2003, XP was released in 2002).

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 2003. Theres a few years of support left on that. Far enough into the future for me not to be able to predict or worry too much.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[10101001 10101001]

Your arguments are mostly valid, but you seem to be struggling with something- It's not my job to *prove* that Vista was everything promised. On the contrary, it's the job of the consumers in question to prove that Vista was less-than-promised, if they want to deem it "faulty" and that they were "defrauded."

Again, you're taking my argument out of context. I never claimed to know what was promised, require you to know what was promised (although I'd expect you to know for your own sake given how you now own Vista), or tried to specifically claim that the people in question were defrauded (although my example might lead claim that some people were defrauded). By all means, yes, there should be proof of fault if demands are made with expectation of resolution. But, the argument at hand was more generic, specifically to address the points you raised/tried to raise.

My point is that they haven't.

Granted. They haven't specifically drawn out the logic, which one can fault them for. Instead, it's assumed that those at Microsoft have the mental power and will of mind to come to the conclusion the evidence offers.

There's no proof, beyond your lacking* sound driver argument that Vista has failed to deliver on any premise.

Vista is not yet good as XP replacement, says Dutchs Consumers Union That's a previous entry. And in it, it sounds like they gathered proof.

*We can all agree that it's silly to expect any operating system to come with drivers for all hardware configurations by default. Or were you expecting SPARC support in Vista, too?

I think that's a vapid example. Two better ones are (a) buying a new machine with Vista were the sound card isn't supported or (b) upgrading an XP machine where the sound card works to Vista where the sound card doesn't work. Now, the former is in many ways more an OEM problem. However, MS issuing Vista compatability certification before Vista was even released has pushed people into category (b). And category (b) people have a lot more reasonable expectation that hardware will work.

Btw, before CP/M, most hardware came from the OS vendor, to the point that it was reasonable to expect all drivers to come with the OS. Most Apple hardware, AFAIK, has necessary drivers with the OS. The issue, I guess, comes down less to whether all configurations are supported and more on whether any common or many uncommon configurations are not supported. Of course, hardware for Windows tends to be lots of uncommon configurations; but, given that's well known, it'd seem important to inform consumers if you knew you were scrapping support for a lot of drivers/hardware.

*shrug*

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Zemran]

Vista is real competition to Linux and is therefore hated by the geeks. My friend has it running on his machine and instead of the usual stick in a disk and a while later you have a running system they have opted for the old-Linux style of fighting for weeks to get she right drivers working so that you are by this time so commited to it that you will fight to the death for your right to keep using it. There is no way that you will change after all that effort. Linux on the other hand has now taken the stick in a disk and a while later you have a running system approach and will soon be the domain of Grannies and children while Vista will be exclusively for the bit hardened geeks.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[yabos]

I saw a guy working in MS Project on Vista editing a Gantt chart. Just editing the start/end times and hitting enter would cause the cursor to turn into the spinning coloured circle for about 1/2 a second. I'm not sure why it takes so much CPU time to do that that vista decides to pop up that thing but it's ridiculous how many times it comes up. It reminds me of the early days of OS X a little.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[ciggieposeur]

Windows 2003. Theres a few years of support left on that. Far enough into the future for me not to be able to predict or worry too much.

And then? In 2010-ish, when Windows 2003 support has finally lapsed, are you just not going to use a general-purpose computer?

Obviously, I'm going somewhere with this...

Back in 1998 I understood finally that I would be where you are at now someday, that Microsoft would eventually release a system that I found too strange or hostile to use and eventually the way *I* like to work would be forcibly obsoleted. So I committed to breaking out of the Windows paradigm before that day came.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Foolhardy]

It's a resource hog. The laptop of my Wife is a Core-2-duo, 2GB ram and decent graphics. Should be more than adequate. Isn't. It's -swapping- as I write this very moment, There's no programs open other than FF which eats 112MB, if we believe Vista, and Thunderbird which eats 87MB. Don't ask me why it's swapping under these circumstances, but it is.

What makes you so sure that it's swapping? Maybe its prefetching (see superfetch, which you can turn off)? Maybe pages are being trimmed into the standby list (where a copy exists both in RAM and disk so that it can go back to work without any disk access)? How much of your page files are actually in use? Is this number increasing? Maybe something else entirely is using the disk?

The performance monitor has counters for these things.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[stewbacca]

Nice try, but people don't like the old coke in this case either. The just dislike it less than the new coke.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[stewbacca]

You just lost every Microsoft Engineer when you said "use-cases".

Re:Ok, start the flames

[gallwapa]

Actually I wanted to get rid of hiberfil.sys since it was just sucking up empty hdd space.

http://www.driverheaven.net/windows-vista-forum/115306-vista-hyberfil-sys.html

Shows how to do it from command line and no one even explains the gui method since they hid it so well.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[fwarren]

People just didn't know what they were buying. And that's the consumer's fault, not Microsoft's.

So you are saying when Microsoft says in their advertising that it is the best OS they have ever made. An end user who does not do IT for a living should know that UAC will bug them and that they have hardware and software that will not work with it?

This is like saying when I go to buy a car with anti-lock breaks for safety. New and improved anti-lock breaking system. Except they don't mention at the dealership when it gets below freezing, the breaks will work erratically. Would you blame me that I did not know what I was buying? That I did not know the right questions to ask? "Hey, will this car blow up if I turn on the wipers? Will the anti-lock breaks go out when it is freezing?"

What is a shame. Is that a compnay with a Monopoly on an industry where they control over 90% of the product sold. Would be able to discontinue a product that works just fine. To replace it with a product that often does not work as well, and the only real benefit appears to be to the Monopolist.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Anonymous Coward]

As I said, its further in the future than I care to worry about. I am not going to cripple myself now just to get ready for a potential problem in the future. I'll let that happen when the time comes.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Eivind]

I'm pretty sure it's swapping. There's visible lag and the disk-ligth comes on for a second whenever I do something like alt+tab to a different application that ain't been used for a while. I thougth the most plausible explanation for this is that that app needs to be swapped in. I'd be glad to hear alternative explanations though.

Swapfile usage ain't high, and doesn't seem to be growing. Currently at ~100MB.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Foolhardy]

That does sound like swapping... look at the the resource monitor when one of the apps seems to be getting swapped in and check the hard fault rate: the green line on the rightmost graph. If this is non-trivial, then something is indeed swapping in from the pagefile. In that case, I can only imagine that Windows has decided that the disk cache or the superfetch cache is more important than the standby cache. Something you can try is stopping and disabling the superfetch service.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Eivind]

I don't know the reason -- and I'm not convinced I -WANT- to know the reason. I just notice that this stuff works poorly, and it actually used to work better in both XP and Windows 98, neither of which where ever swapping without reason, despite the fact that the last laptop of my wife had only a quarter the RAM of the current one (512MB as compared to 2GB now)

Looked at the resource-monitor. The hard-faults are 0 (as they should be) when I'm doing nothing disk-usage is also zero. Alt-tabbing to thunderbird, and then back to resource-monitor brings hard-faults/sec up to ~200 for a second or two, disk-use climbs to 2MB/s or thereabout, before falling back after a second or so.

Your assumption that vista is over-caching seems correct. According to the task-manager, of the total 2048MB ram, 120MB is used by the kernel, and 1521MB for caching. Which leaves only 360MB for the applications. I'd actually expect that to be in the ballpark for the applications I have open, it's only Thunderbird, Firefox, Eclipse, afterall.

But it still seems strange that I should need to wait for my programs to be swapped in when I have 350MB worth of apps on a 2GB laptop.... I'm certain Vista can be tweaked to stop doing that, if I (or my wife) wanted to fiddle around with this kind of shit, we'd be running Gentoo though. out-of-the-box experience matters. It's everything 90% of your users will ever see.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[Foolhardy]

The hard fault spike does indicate swapping. If the pages were simply coming back from the standby cache, they'd be soft faults (with no disk access). Also note that the standby cache is counted as both cache memory and available memory, so some of that 1521MB cache may actually be program memory, trimmed from all process working sets but still in RAM. Unfortunately, the cache memory category is used by a lot of things (even the registry!), and I don't know a good way to get a finer grained break down.

You're right about the OOB experience being important, yet crappy. 2GB should be more than enough for Vista to run well, despite bloat. The biggest reason I'm even running Vista instead of XP or 2003 is that I wanted 4GB of memory, and only Vista supports hibernation with that much.

Re:Ok, start the flames

[dave420]

Really? You play the latest games that don't run on Linux and you use Dreamweaver CS3, Photoshop CS3 and Flash CS3? Great!

Re:Ok, start the flames

[dave420]

I know you get Adobe software on Macs, I also know that the latest games are only available for Windows. That means if you want to do both, you have to get Windows. The games available for Linux and Macs is a tiny subset of the games available on Windows.

Yeah!

[eddy]

Boycott Microsoft for... er... Microsoft. That'll show them!

Re:Yeah!

[peragrin]

actually that's a really good idea. customers get what they want and MSFT gets burned by developing an OS that no one wants.

next up Universal will have a free subscription service that only works with universal branded mp3 players, that can only decode universal's mp3 drm.

oh wait.

Re:Yeah!

[Jarjarthejedi]

"customers get what they want and MSFT gets burned by developing an OS that no one wants."

Or, customers get what they think they want, and Microsoft (why must people abbreviate it? It's not that long of a word) gets to keep it's market share relatively even while also having it's older OS (XP) look much better to many people (upgrade to linux? Nah, I'll just go back to XP. It was perfect as I remember).

Re:Yeah!

[Anonymous Coward]

...gets to keep it's market share relatively even while also having it's older OS ...gets to keep it is market share relatively even while also having it is older OS.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Yeah!

[jkrise]

"Boycott Microsoft for... er... Microsoft."

I think you got it wrong there... it's like boycotting Bullshit to slightly better smelling manure. People need time to get used to the multiple new flavours, of .. you know, like.. It's not fair for Microsoft to break the stenchometer and get away with it.

Re:Yeah!

[Linker3000]

Pet peeve?

Re:Yeah!

[suv4x4]

Boycott Microsoft for... er... Microsoft. That'll show them!

Right, very funny, but they never said they want to boycott Microsoft.

I know, it's all confusing since part of normal people's agenda for once matches Slashdotters' agenda. But the reasons are different, the details are different, and the goal is different.

Re:Yeah!

[Anonymous Coward]

*swooooosh*

You fail it, try again.

Re:Yeah!

[Anonymous Coward]

This should really be insightfull :P

Re:Yeah!

[sehrgut]

For Mac . . . or for the adventurous, Linux! Face it, Leopard officially kills Vista. http://digg.com/apple/Leopard_Kills_Vista

In other news

[the_skywise]

The Dutch Consumers Union ordered Toyota to give '07 model owners the old '06 models due to rising dissatisfaction with the lower horsepower of the '07 models.

Not surprisingly, Toyota refused.

Re:In other news

[Tim C]

And once again we see how bad a car analogy can be - even if I've installed and used Vista, as long as any materials I received (eg disk, manual, etc) are in good condition MS loses nothing by swapping my Vista licence for an XP one and exchanging the disks.

Cars lose the value the moment they're driven out of the showroom.

Re:In other news

[v01d]

as long as any materials I received (eg disk, manual, etc) are in good condition MS loses nothing by swapping my Vista licence for an XP one and exchanging the disks.

No, there's just about nothing MS can do you with your old copies. They can't be sold to consumers. I don't think MS even exchanges physically defective CDs directly.

I'll agree a car analogy is generally not the best way to go, but in this case car's lose 20% being driven off the lot; Windows CDs lose 100%.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

%100 of zero Euros is still zero Euros and that is pretty much the value of the CD's. It's the sale of the licence that is of value to Microsoft.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure whether you're joking or pretending not to understand as a trolling technique or if you honestly don't get it. It costs Toyota real money to make or buy a car. They lose that money if they give that car to someone. They don't get as much back on selling a second hand car. It costs Microsoft nothing at all to issue an XP license. Whether they can resell the license they get back in return is irrelevant because they're not out of pocket at all. Even if they feel bound to give a full package with DVD and a box, we're still talking about pennies. This is nothing at all like a car.

Re:In other news

[the_skywise]

No, it's the right analogy.

MS doesn't "lose nothing". There's a definite loss of value. At the very least having to produce "extra discs" and shipping or supplying the bandwidth for the downloads. (which isn't what the article said anyway. The union wants a downgrade optionOn the other side you have loss of sales of Vista while having to supply copies of XP which, business-wise, are DISTINCT PRODUCTS with DIFFERENT levels of accountable value at different points of depreciation.

Sure, it's an intangible asset. But that doesn't mean that swapping data file a with data file b is a zero-sum game with no loss to Microsoft. If you believe that, I'll happily trade you 50,000 gold from Ultima Online for 50,000 gold for WoW. I mean, gosh... it's just DATA...

Re:In other news

[Entropius]

Then have the customers pay for the disks/shipping or the bandwidth.

I think I have that much change in my pockets right now.

Re:In other news

[the_skywise]

Okay... 40 million copies at 10 cents each is...

Re:In other news

[hxnwix]

In other news, cars are physical products whereas a software product is a pile of bits.

Not surprisingly, the_skywise's head explodes, but his lack of brain does not reduce his ability to contrive inane car analogies.

Re:In other news

[Beer_Smurf]

But it cost almost nothing for MS to give you a copy of XP.
So maybe they should let you downgrade for the cost of the discs plus postage?

Re:In other news

[flyingfsck]

Vista also loses value the moment it is carried out of the showroom.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

10 cents each.

Re:In other news

[644bd346996]

Actually, the problem isn't with the horsepower. It's the '07 transmissions that really suck. I'm not sure about the Dutch, but Toyota is definitely stonewalling over the issue.

Re:In other news

[Wowsers]

Vista has value in it?

Re:In other news

[Entropius]

... pocket change, if you're Microsoft.

Or: use bittorrent.

Re:In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Well ok, so it loses a little value when you first pick it up in the showroom...well, actually that's not quite true either...by the time they've put the dvd in the box, most of the value has already leaked out...in fact, sometimes by the time the dvd mastering is finished, the value that was in the first part of the disc to be burned has already evaporated...

Ok fine. FINE. FINE! You're right, there's no value to be had, anywhere in the process! Except, well...given that a writable dvd has some value in the first instance, adding Vista actually means there's LESS value in the disc than it started with...

We're so ashamed. Please don't tell anyone else.

--The Microsoft Vista Development Team, Redmond WA USA

Re:In other news

[howlingmadhowie]

it's a horrible analogy and you know it. your hoop-jumping and marketing speech only prove it. a cd costs microsoft probably about 10c. the rest is just pure profit.

Re:In other news

[the_skywise]

Well gosh... Microsoft should just give everything away then. Because Windows OS doesn't really *cost* anything.

Re:In other news

[cloakable]

So maybe they should let you upgrade for the cost of the discs plus postage?

There, fixed that for you.

Re:In other news

[howlingmadhowie]

nope, you still don't understand. microsoft has already been paid for the software. now the consumer is saying "i want to swap this software license for a different software license of yours". microsoft is losing nothing of material value by exchanging one license for another one. your argument is so inherently wrong i find it difficult to believe that you don't realise it yourself.

Re:In other news

[XMode]

Except that MS wants XP dead.. Dead dead dead dead.. And this cant happen if they are forced to swap Vista licenses for XP ones..

I can see why they want XP dead as well, supporting and fixing 2 versions of windows with different codebases must be a nightmare, one they thought they had finally gotten away from..

Re:In other news

[the_skywise]

No, you still don't understand. Swapping software is still swapping product A for product B. That constitutes an accounting loss. Yes there's no physical resources being swapped. But there's still a loss of value on the books that has to be reported back as revenue and tax loss.

Re:In other news

[howlingmadhowie]

how much does it cost a store if i buy a product, find i bought the wrong one without opening it and bring it back to exchange it for another?

Re:In other news

[earlymon]

And once again we see how bad a car analogy can be - ... You are absolutely correct - the OP was trying for a Lambourghini-level analogy, but only got as far as a Yugo. It's a real problem on slashdot - there are a lot of Edsels in the comparisons I read daily.

But the part where you mixed cars and oranges is as follows - you're talking about MS losing nothing by swapping a license if the disks are still good....

Dooood - the disks aren't the license. In fact, fancy packaging aside, the disks themselves cost less than the postage required to send you something. MS costs would be in the admin of such a program, the lost face in the market, and the negative ROI for developing Vista.

The only thing physical you have - aside from the license notice itself - for the license is your codeword. Arguing that your codeword has been read and therefore that it couldn't be returned would be like letting just a pound or two of the air out of the tires of a showroom car and then breathing that air - easy for the dealer to get more, and something you've already exhaled.

Re:In other news

[TheStonepedo]

Most software is also distributed on a set of CDs or DVDs (used to be floppies) for the consumer to use if reinstallation or repair are necessary. Paper packaging and pressed discs are inexpensive to manufacture, but shipping replacement discs to OEMs and requiring those OEMs to alert consumers by mail, ads, or news can be a very expensive process.

I'll agree with you that car analogies don't fit exactly, but getting your pile of bits to consumers has an associated cost much higher than getting the original pile of bits to the OEMs.

Re:In other news

[v01d]

It costs Microsoft nothing at all to issue an XP license.

The post I responded to specifically mentioned exchanging CDs. It does cost to create CDs and distribute them. Neither the box, manual, CD's or distribution are free. Everytime MS sends someone XP install media it costs them, disposing of the returned Vista media would cost as well. I couldn't begin to guess how much, but it's pretty obvious an exchange program would cost Microsoft.

It depends upon the system.

[khasim]

WinVista lacks a LOT of drivers (for fairly common hardware, too). If you have hardware that WinVista doesn't support, you're unhappy (see years of previous complaints about Linux).

WinVista also has lots of eye-candy which eats up processor time. So it looks pretty, but runs slower. The eye-candy can be turned off, but then it looks a lot like WinXP.

WinVista has a different security model than WinXP and it takes people some effort to learn and in the meantime, they're unhappy with it (again, see years of previous complaints about Linux).

Not all of your apps will run with WinVista, unless you use "compatibility mode" or do some extra steps.

Which is why Microsoft extended WinXP for OEM's.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[ozmanjusri]

WinVista also has lots of eye-candy which eats up processor time.

It's not the eye-candy which eats processor cycles, RAM and network bandwidth. It's the DRM.

Vista was made for record companies and movie studios, not computer users.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's just like when XP came out? From what I recall everyone thought it was terrible and wanted to use Windows 2000 instead.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[bealzabobs_youruncle]

Since the eye candy is off-loaded to the GPU it doesn't take CPU time, so it is officially safe to ignore the rest of your post as ill-informed.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

I still use Windows 2000. Why should I switch to XP? It doesn't offer anything that Windows 2000 can't do, and that includes games - it's trivially easy to get "WinXP only" games to run on Win2000 most of the time. In those very few cases where it isn't trivially easy, there's usually a hack someone else has cobbled together out on the internet.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[kryptkpr]

There is overhead involved, even with the off-loading.

Looking at my Ubuntu system, the #1 process for using up cpu is compiz (1h40m of CPU time during 7d uptime), in spite of off-loading the actual rendering to my nVidia card. I don't really notice as I have a Quad-core CPU, but it would hurt quite a bit more with only 1 or even with 2 cores.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Waffle Iron]

Since the eye candy is off-loaded to the GPU it doesn't take CPU time

CPU time is not the problem. Raw CPU speed * core count has been increasing as fast as ever lately, but GUI responsiveness has remained almost stagnant. That's because caching and buffering aren't perfect, and ultimately some things are dependent on disk seek time, which has hardly improved at all in the past few years.

Now throw a bunch of eye candy on top of the situation, which is very data intensive and therefore just going to put that much more pressure onto buffer usage, disk drive seeking and bottlenecked I/O buses. That's a recipie for sluggishness.

PCs are already like 60s muscle cars: a huge engine bolted into a crappy budget family sedan with bias-ply tires and drum brakes. A GPU is like bolting in another engine. It's not going to solve fundamental problems with the system that inhibit good all-around performance.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

And thus the slashdot groupthink votes this up.

Once again, until you play DRM content there's no DRM cycles used. Guttman's infamous whitepaper was written without actually installing Vista anywhere, yet somehow it's hailed as fact. If some random blogger put out a whitepaper about Linux saying how much it sucked without ever having installed it we'd be all over him, but Guttman seems to get a free ride. Twofaced aren't we?

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Entropius]

There's also the fact that the power consumption of my GPU goes up a lot when it's having to do processing -- Nvidia's got a PowerNow!-type frequency scaling thing that they use.

Do I want my computer chewing up battery when rendering shiny stuff? Not really.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. Vista sucks it's a CPU hog. It's main purpose in life is to fuck you over. It's to trick people into upgrading there computers. There is nothing that can't be done on XP better then the way it is done in windows. Yes, you may need third party apps to do it but it can be done. Microsoft had three goals when it made vista. One blame users for how insecure the OS is, keep asking him question until he hires someone to turn off the quistion asking. Two create a DRM based platform so that Microsoft could make money selling Hollywood's shit. Three Answer the System Builders requests for a New OS that needed modern and higher end hard to run well. Which is funny because the system builders mainly buy the shittiest hardware for there consumer products which does not acc8 vista graphics which suck anyway. Oh, where the fuck is the consumer in all of this mess anyway. Somewhere between 75 degrees and 90 degrees.

Go to hell form a many using a cheap laptop that came with fucking Vista. Should have bought the Laptop with the lower specs, higher price and Windows XP. Wait instead of going to directly to hell go out a buy a sub 600 dollar vista laptop and use it until you die; hell will then seem quite user freindly.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Dunbal]

Since the eye candy is off-loaded to the GPU it doesn't take CPU time, so it is officially safe to ignore the rest of your post as ill-informed.

      Since the poster said "processor time" and not "CPU time", and since the GPU is also a processor, it's safe to ignore you as a nit-picker who has no clue about what he's talking about. If I tie up the GPU with eye candy and need the GPU for something else at the same time, my system will run slower.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[jgarra23]

Don't forget that if you're a developer forced to work on a Vista box it's buggy as shit, there are a million and one patches you have to install and god forbid if you're asked to migrate any asp.net apps from iis6 to iis7... talk about undocumented manual conversion... ugh...

Re:It depends upon the system.

[pherthyl]

Not quite. When XP came out, all the geeks thought it was terrible and wanted to use Windows 2000 instead, because chances are they were already using it. The people that didn't care about computers loved Windows XP, because they were coming from Windows 98/ME. Now people are coming from XP, which is decent, and even the average consumer doesn't like Vista, not just the geeks.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[ozmanjusri]

Twofaced aren't we?

From the VistaBlog interview with Dave Marsh, Lead Program Manager responsible for Windows' handling of video;

Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource consumption?

Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable, as the PC provides consumers with additional functionality. Windows Vista's content protection features were developed to carefully balance the need to provide robust protection from commercial content while still enabling great new experiences such as HD-DVD or Blu-Ray playback.

You can keep the second face. You seem to be getting plenty of use from it.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Tripkipke]

Well I'm running ubuntu/compiz on my IBM T43/intel gpu and it doesn't hurt one bit. The little bugger runs flawlessly. Maybe some your cores are tired :P Compiz takes about 0:1.35 cpu time, in contrast, gkrellmd take 0:17, Xorg takes 0:4.40

Re:It depends upon the system.

[TheRaven64]

There was no upgrade edition of 2000 that let you come from 9x/Me. The two flavours of 2000 Workstation were the full version, at several hundred dollars, or the cheaper upgrade from NT4. Those o us who were running NT4, upgraded to 2000. Those running 9x stayed with it. When XP came out, XP Pro let you upgrade from 2K (or NT4? Not sure) while XP Home let you upgrade from 9x. While XP Home was a step down from 2K, it was a huge step up from 9x.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

So it's just like when XP came out? From what I recall everyone thought it was terrible and wanted to use Windows 2000 instead. Not really. Windows 2000 -> WIndows XP simply didn't add anything that people needed. Windows XP -> Vista actually breaks things that people already have.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[aliquis]

His point was that aslong as you don't use that functionality it won't affect you, and I don't see how it would, do you? If you don't play DRM content there is no problem.

And even IF you play DRM content and there is a problem it's not Microsofts fault, it's the content providers and in the end the consumers which accept it fault.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Billhead]

There was no upgrade edition of 2000 that let you come from 9x/Me. Yes, there is. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/232039

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is really different. XP had the fisherprice looks but that could be changed and the system had improved since Win2000. Everyone is used to XP now and SP2 improved things a lot, there is nothing hugely wrong with it.

Vista is based on its looks which are ugly and the underlying stuff is worse than XP, heavy DRM, resource hungry, slower than XP etc. etc. There is no compelling reason to "upgrade".

I was going to buy a laptop but without the choice of XP, I'll probably go with Dell/Ubuntu or OS X, so MS lose out. I've seen a lot of people buying XP at the local BestBuy, people dislike Vista and its very real problems.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[CastrTroy]

Eye candy doesn't have to eat up processor time. I running a laptop with Intel GMA and a Celeron 1.6. It has Mandriva installed with the 3D desktop. It flies. I haven't noticed any slow downs, and at times actually seems smoother than the old 2D desktops. Vista is just programmed extremely terribly. There's no reason you should need a powerful computer to run a 3D desktop. It's no more complicated than the games that were release 8 years ago. Look at Quake 3, Descent 3, and others. Does Vista look any more complicated than that? No, and it shouldn't take more of a computer to run than what those programs ran on.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[larry bagina]

Speaking only for myself, I bought a laptop that came with Windows 2K installed on it (I don't recall if I had the option of Windows ME). I had a work computer updated from windows 95 (ugh) to Windows 2K (although it was probably a disk re-image more than an upgrade).

Re:It depends upon the system.

[CastrTroy]

That's the thing. Intel has really good drivers. I have a cheap laptop, and it flies with the 3D desktop. I have a Desktop with a more powerful ATI card, and a faster processor, and no matter which drivers I install, the 3D performance seems to be sub-par. NVidia drivers on Linux are better from what I hear, but they probably still aren't offloading as much as they should be.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[blind biker]

I thought that depended onthe version of the GPU. Does the GUI ("eye candy") processing get done in the GPU of older cards, too? If not, the OP is still right.

Just sayin'

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Idaho]

Since the eye candy is off-loaded to the GPU it doesn't take CPU time, so it is officially safe to ignore the rest of your post as ill-informed.

Yes, because it's not like there's about a million weblogs etc. saying that turning off the Aero effects will improve performance (and memory usage) drastically, though still way worse than Windows XP. Oh wait, there are!

Also, this must be why Microsoft does *not* have a software tool to determine whether you can run Vista, with or without Aero effects. Oh wait, they do! (and no, the output of this tool does not depend on GPU only).

Re:It depends upon the system.

[TrancePhreak]

What is a Wookie doing on Endor? Your post just seems mal-formed. I mean, you show stats for Ubuntu and apply them to Vista. That's not how it works.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

here in norway a friend of mine bought a laptop a few months back at a supermarket(!). Anyway she isn't a geek, so she got norton internet security + windows vista, which without anything running consumed an astounding 640 MB of ram. The laptop was shipped with 1GB ram. Easy to fix, ok, for us. For the average consumer it isn't.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[JebusIsLord]

I actually find Vista's UI to be much more professional looking and quite easy on the eyes vs. XP.

Heavy DRM? How so? I've been ripping CDs and DVDs the same as ever. I know they included some stuff to let me play new DRM-laden formats, but I can choose to use them or not. you'd have prefered they leave the functionality out entirely?

Resource hungry, slower? This is true. You need lots of RAM and it does run slower. Agreed. This will become less important over time, as was the case with XP, 2000, NT etc.

Ultimately I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't improve very much, but it IS an improvement over XP. I expect the first service pack will make it paletable to most people who don't have an irrational hate-on for Microsoft.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[ViperAFK]

The eye candy definitely does not slow down your computer unless you have a REALLY bad graphics card. It shouldn't eat processor time either ebcause it uses the gpu instead. I find stuff like dragging windows uses more cpu with aero off.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[JasonTik]

So wait... Vista is just a really buggy linux clone? I should have known Microsoft could even manage to screw up linux!

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Justin Ames]

provide robust protection from commercial content Well, I think everyone can agree that we need protection from the MAFIAA. But unfortunately if you stop paying cycles to MS, they might revoke their "protection."

Re:It depends upon the system.

[rs79]

" When XP came out, XP Pro let you upgrade from 2K (or NT4? Not sure) while XP Home let you upgrade from 9x." "

Not exacly true. You can upgrade from 9 to xp pro. Actually you can upgrade a freshly formatted drive to xp pro. WTF dude?

I put xp on a few machines here but kept 98 on this machine.

Oddly, 10 years after the fact I'm still seeing errors I haven't seen before.

But, it does everything I need it too and it a helluva lot more stable that it was in 98. In fact I rarely have to reboot these days. Meanwhile xp shits itself with alarming regularity.

Maybe it really was the drivers that made 98 wonky.

Keep in mind my folks use ME and have for 7 years and never had a problem with it.

There's a non-zero chance, of course, I live in a parallen universe or something.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[prelelat]

have you tested this, because I sure have. I have used vista on a dual core machine with aero turned on and it would eat up cpu. I then turned it off an it was alot better. I got vista on my thinkpad t60 it's also a dual core machine, turns out that when I put xp onto the machine not only did it preform faster it also had a longer battery life. It also seems to me to be a big memory hog. Basically Vista wasn't ready, when it is I might put it back on my laptop.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[cbhacking]

WinVista lacks a LOT of drivers (for fairly common hardware, too). If you have hardware that WinVista doesn't support, you're unhappy (see years of previous complaints about Linux). Technically true, but mostly irrelevant. Vista will load 95% of XP drivers without a hitch - the easiest way is if the driver is shipped as an executable installer, since then even if you forget to set Compatibility Mode before running the installer, Vista will ask you if you want to re-run it in compatibility mode should the install fail. If it just comes as a .inf and .sys file, edit the INF to add Vista to the supported list, and right-click -> Install. The only caveats here are that network drivers won't work on account of the re-written network stack and new NDIS, and XP video drivers will work fine but you lose all the advantages of WDDM.

WinVista also has lots of eye-candy which eats up processor time. So it looks pretty, but runs slower. The eye-candy can be turned off, but then it looks a lot like WinXP. If your GPU is decently powerful (i.e. isn't an integrated solution that leeches off the CPU) you'll almost certainly not see this, as the "eye candy" you refer to (much of it, like the thumbnail views of your running programs, is actually very useful) is offloaded to the GPU. The overhead numbers I've heard for using this model are about 5%, and if you look at the CPU time taken by the DWM (Desktop Window Manager) I've never seen it go higher than 5% and it's usually at 0%

WinVista has a different security model than WinXP and it takes people some effort to learn and in the meantime, they're unhappy with it (again, see years of previous complaints about Linux). The people who see more than 2 or 3 UAC prompts per day, top (I'm using an exaggeratedly large number to catch the "yeah, but my program X always needs admin privileges and I run in 3 times a day" responses; most normal users see maybe this many a month) are either incessant tinkerers or admins who need full control. If you're the former, you probably know how to modify access control lists (even easier in Windows than chmod/chown) so things that you need to access and can access safely will run with your permissions. If you're the latter, either deal with a couple (literally, 2) extra seconds on most administrative tasks or run your account as an unrestricted admin (much like logging into a *nix box as root; it's occasionally handy but not something to do regularly). For the average user who shouldn't be using full admin privs all the time anyway (or your slightly-clued-in user who knows this and experienced the pain of doing things in XP as a non-admin), UAC is arguably Vista's best feature.

Not all of your apps will run with WinVista, unless you use "compatibility mode" or do some extra steps. Since Vista automatically offers to re-run most programs in Compatibility Mode if they didn't work without it, and since MS provides step-by-step instructions and a helpful wizard for resolving compatibility issues, and since it literally takes 5 clicks of the mouse to set compatibility mode to XP SP2, and since the vast majority of apps will run fine on Vista without any Compatibility Mode at all, this really doesn't seem like a major issue to me.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

WinVista also has lots of eye-candy which eats up processor time. So it looks pretty, but runs slower. The eye-candy can be turned off, but then it looks a lot like WinXP. Just as well then that (from http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/710rc#head-53fb1bb59cc05521a2a6f644d4808ff140d9adaa):

"Compiz Fusion is enabled by default and will bring 3D desktop visual effects that improve the usability and visual appeal of the system. Ubuntu 7.10 automatically detects whether the hardware is capable of running compiz; if not, it falls back to normal desktop."

Such considerations are very important for those of us running on "antiquated" hardware.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[HiThere]

I don't see an original date of publication on that page. (The date that I found was this year.) As such, your link doesn't refute his assertion. NOW there's an upgrade path. That doesn't mean that one was available at the time.

Also, I seem to remember the assertion as being true. Not, I'll admit, with clarity, but I seem to remember some rather jubuliant comments when the update path became available. Unfortunately, although I know it was on /., I don't even know what year. (I've never used either, so it's been on the fringes of my awareness.)

Re:It depends upon the system.

[canajin56]

I have the Windows 2000 upgrade disk I used right here, it can upgrade your 9x or NT4 install to 2000, or it can do a fresh install if you insert your older version's disk first for verification. I don't remember when I got it...but it wasn't long after the launch. Reading old press releases, the 9x upgrade box was being priced in late 1999, and was available for sale Feb 2000, along with all other boxes. In January you could buy it preloaded from certain OEMs, but that was it. Unless there was some sort of delay I don't see mentioned anywhere, the 9x upgrade box was available the second the NT upgrade was, which was after it was first available preloaded, but the same time it was available as a stand-alone box.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Billhead]

There was an upgrade path at the time, I used the upgrade version myself. I remember having to install 98 just so I could install 2000, and if you are talking about dates, it was somewhere between 2000-2002.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[drseuk]

Not quite. When 6.10 came out, all the geeks thought it was terrible and wanted to use 6.06 instead, because chances are they were already using it. The people that didn't care about computers loved 6.10, because they were coming from 5.10. Now people are coming from 6.10, which is decent, and even the average consumer doesn't like 7.04, not just the geeks.

Hmm!

Re:It depends upon the system.

[howlingmadhowie]

i don't know many people who have an irrational hate-on for Microsoft. i do know a lot of people (me included) who have a quite rational hate-on for Microsoft, as you put it.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[beckerist]

I second that notion.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[obarel]

How will that become less important over time? If I go to PC World and buy a computer, and it has vista (well, it does), then I'm pretty much stuck with it. It's not going to become less important to me - I'm stuck with a computer that could have had better performance but doesn't, and it wasn't through a choice of mine.

Of course, if I plan to upgrade my computer every year, then it will eventually become less important to me. But it is so difficult to get rid of computers these days that I won't be upgrading any time soon. Until then, I've got Yahoo games not working with vista ("known problem"), a slow shutdown, and a 2GB RAM half-decent system that would have carried a lot more on XP.

It's not even "early adoption" - it's been out for a while, and it doesn't look like it's getting any better.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Das Modell]

The people who see more than 2 or 3 UAC prompts per day, top (I'm using an exaggeratedly large number to catch the "yeah, but my program X always needs admin privileges and I run in 3 times a day" responses; most normal users see maybe this many a month) are either incessant tinkerers or admins who need full control.

UAC prompts you for virtually everything. Renaming, deleting and moving files will prompt you no less than two times.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Das Modell]

And thus the slashdot groupthink votes this up.

At the time of this writing it's modded down. In fact, many anti-Vista posts in this thread are modded down, which is pretty odd on Slashdot. I thought this place was a stronghold of anti-Microsoft and anti-Windows people. In any case, modding down completely reasonable posts that are anti-Vista is just fucking retarded.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[fritsd]

Maybe the gibbon will grab their attention. I hope compiz has stabilized enough in the meantime, though.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[cloakable]

Using Compiz Fusion in Feisty on my laptop, and it's rock solid.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[The One and Only]

Speak for yourself! For us Mac users, everything since System 6.0.8 has been slow, buggy, and bloated!

Re:It depends upon the system.

[wicka]

WinVista also has lots of eye-candy which eats up processor time. So it looks pretty, but runs slower. The eye-candy can be turned off, but then it looks a lot like WinXP.

Firefox and iTunes consistently use more resources than Vista's graphical effects (DWM). Hell, occasionally Pidgin even does. None of these programs have a significant amount of processor usage (looking at Task Manager for awhile, none got above 1%). The idea that Vista's eye candy sucks up resources is just blatantly, undeniably false.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[badpazzword]

Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource consumption?

[...] Windows Vista's content protection features were developed to carefully balance the need to provide robust protection from commercial content [...]

Protecting me from DRM with DRM?

Re:It depends upon the system.

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Once again, until you play DRM content there's no DRM cycles used.

That is by no means a certainty. Many DRM system designs are in form of "windows services", i.e. daemons which continuously run in the background "monitoring" things or for "faster response" i.e. to save on load time and give the user an illusion of better interactivity at the expense of overall performance loss. Furthermore, the most recent DRM designs involve extensive and intrusive interactions with all the paths digital audio/video contents can take thus increasing radically the complexity, and thus performance of those subsystems even without DRM contents being played.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

>>before running the installer, Vista will ask you if you want to re-run it in compatibility mode should the install fail. If it just comes as a .inf >>and .sys file, edit the INF to add Vista to the supported list, and right-click -> Install. The only caveats here are that network drivers won't work >>on account of the re-written network stack and new NDIS, and XP video drivers will work fine but you lose all the advantages of WDDM.

WHAAAATT!?!!?! just "edit the INF" file? All these years of people bitching about how linux is so hard because you might have to edit a text config file...now some windoze dude says: "no problem, just edit the INF file..."

Re:It depends upon the system.

[drsmithy]

UAC prompts you for virtually everything. Renaming, deleting and moving files will prompt you no less than two times.

Only if you are modifying files for which you don't have permissions. Which puts you well and truly into the "tinkerers" group and, further, is to be expected.

Having finally gotten around to installing Vista on an old Precision M60 laptop to see what all the fuss was about, I see maybe one UAC prompt a week - and I've yet to see one without reason, or that I wouldn't expect to see the equivalent of in OS X or Linux.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[ChameleonDave]

WinVista lacks a LOT of drivers (for fairly common hardware, too). If you have hardware that WinVista doesn't support, you're unhappy (see years of previous complaints about Linux).

WinVista also has lots of eye-candy which eats up processor time. So it looks pretty, but runs slower. The eye-candy can be turned off, but then it looks a lot like WinXP.

WinVista has a different security model than WinXP and it takes people some effort to learn and in the meantime, they're unhappy with it (again, see years of previous complaints about Linux).

Not all of your apps will run with WinVista, unless you use "compatibility mode" or do some extra steps.

What part of that doesn't apply to Linux?

(You correctly mention Linux, but I'm just emphasising the point for Linuxers who bash Vista.)

I have no problem with eye candy. I have Compiz-Fusion installed, with all the trimmings. It works like a dream. I had to look hard for drivers for my printer-scanner, but I just put that down to Canon being lazy. Linux was hard to learn when I was so used to Windows, but it's OK now.

I dual boot with XP. If I could replace that with a gratis copy of Vista, I would.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Das Modell]

I had admin priviledges, and I got UAC prompts when I renamed files that I had created myself. In one case it prompted me before I had even finished typing the new file name. I got prompted pretty much once every minute before I finally figured out how to disable UAC.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[dedazo]

I'm sure you're just about to provide proof of that claim. Right? I'd love to see it.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Thaelon]

Mostly it's a lack of proper threading.

The GUI has to wait on things like the disk. This is unavoidable, the disk is slower. However, you can put the fetchMeSomeDataFromDisk() call in another thread separate from the GUI management thread and then at least the GUI would continue to be responsive while data is being retrieved to populate a portion of it.

Unfortunately this kind of threading is exceedingly rare because it's freaking hard.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[mdwh2]

And the real joke is that OS X gets nothing but praise for the very same issue - no one cares about the eye candy hogging the CPU when it's Apple doing it.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[mdwh2]

I imagine that's a hard requirement - if your GPU doesn't support the necessary features, you can't run Aero.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[mikael]

It's not the eye-candy which eats processor cycles, RAM and network bandwidth. It's the DRM.

Our research lab has some high-demand 3D graphics applications. With XP they run at a decent frame rate. With Vista, if the eye-candy is turned on, they run like molasses. That's with all the standard optimisations (display lists, triangle strips, texture atlases etc...)

Re:It depends upon the system.

[cojsl]

"Not all of your apps will run with WinVista, unless you use "compatibility mode" or do some extra steps." "Since Vista automatically offers to re-run most programs in Compatibility Mode if they didn't work without it, and since MS provides step-by-step instructions and a helpful wizard for resolving compatibility issues, and since it literally takes 5 clicks of the mouse to set compatibility mode to XP SP2, and since the vast majority of apps will run fine on Vista without any Compatibility Mode at all, this really doesn't seem like a major issue to me." How about Quickbooks? Can't use compatibility mode here, you MUST upgrade to version 2007 or newer if you have Vista ($500-++?? for multiuser versions). MANY other industry specific apps are the same in my experience.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[plague3106]

Excuse me, what part of that quote says it will use cycles on DRM WHEN YOU AREN'T PLAYING A MOVIE OR AUDIO FILE?

Re:It depends upon the system.

[plague3106]

Ahh, you mean daemons which sit there and literally do nothing until a movie start playing?

Ok, you think you know how the system works. Please post a reference that backs up your post. Otherwise, STFU.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[plague3106]

How will that become less important over time? If I go to PC World and buy a computer, and it has vista (well, it does), then I'm pretty much stuck with it. It's not going to become less important to me - I'm stuck with a computer that could have had better performance but doesn't, and it wasn't through a choice of mine.

And this is different than when XP first came out how?

Re:It depends upon the system.

[plague3106]

Keep in mind my folks use ME and have for 7 years and never had a problem with it.

There's a non-zero chance, of course, I live in a parallen universe or something.

I'd say its a 100% certainty. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they haven't had a problem with ME.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[plague3106]

I "only" have a dual core system, and an older video card (NV FX 5700) to boot, and Vista is quite snappy for me. Even "only" have 1GB of RAM. Sounds like something is wrong with your Linux system..

Re:It depends upon the system.

[GPL Apostate]

Well, for one thing, XP has the 'phone home and kill Bill's ring' feature of mandatory validation. I prefer buying something and not requiring 'clearance' from anybody to install it on my machine and use it. So I've not updated past Windows 2000. And I am a person who used to purchase EVERY update, usually in the form of the full retail box 'Install on a New Computer' version because update versions have awkward installers. I have Windows 95, 98, even ME, and W2K in that format.

Microsoft lost me as a software customer some years ago. Although I still like their mice. Microsoft makes decent mice, just like Harley-Davidson makes decent Dog Collars (but H-D cat collars suck: our little 4 pound black longhair ripped her H-D collar all up in a matter of weeks)

Re:It depends upon the system.

[GPL Apostate]

Stop being so bipolar. It isn't an either/or decision. We don't have to like either Microsoft or Apple. And, no, that also doesn't mean we have to then like Linux or one of the BSD OSes. People can express strong dislikes without 'siding' with another 'camp' in a fanboy scene.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[jgarra23]

I can see by the fact that I've been modded up that people agree with me.

I'm not a an anti-MS fanboi either... once XP was finally patched together (for the most part) I enjoyed developing on it... I like SQL Server 2k5, Visual Studio 2k5, and Visual Studio 2k8 is really nice so far but man, when Mr. Ballmer was screaming "Developers! Developers! Developers!" He must have forgot to prefix it with "Fuck " when it came to Vista.

It's a shame too because over the decades they've put out some nice products and... here, you only hear about their failures, never their successes or contributions... not to say that the anti-MS crowd here doesn't have validity, they certainly do...

Re:It depends upon the system.

[dnoyeb]

Actually its quite simple. You just have to do it yourself. So much these days is done by tools. And tools hardly ever create a proper software architecture. They mash everything together.

Windows threading is horrible. Just look that they had to release a whole version of windows (win95) just so you can do something while the printer is running.

I don't know how many times Adobe causes my whole browser to lock up. Its not just MS, so many companies are so lazy. None of my software ever locks up like that. I do have a masters in this stuff but really its not hard at all if someone is assigned to do it...

Any software architect should be able to handle it.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[petermgreen]

The advice I heared was to avoid the basic theme in vista, apparently it is heavier on the CPU than either classic or aero.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[therufus]

WinVista lacks a LOT of drivers (for fairly common hardware, too). If you have hardware that WinVista doesn't support, you're unhappy (see years of previous complaints about Linux). Drivers are the responsibility of the hardware manufacturer, not the operating system. That being said, we've built several new PC's at work with Vista Home Premium (I work for a custom computer retailer), and driver installation was easier than XP even.

WinVista also has lots of eye-candy which eats up processor time. So it looks pretty, but runs slower. The eye-candy can be turned off, but then it looks a lot like WinXP. So don't try and install it on a low powered PC. Consumers want the eye candy so they can say 'wow, that looks nice'. People still install Norton Anti-virus, so having a fast PC is clearly not a concern for your average punter.

WinVista has a different security model than WinXP and it takes people some effort to learn and in the meantime, they're unhappy with it (again, see years of previous complaints about Linux). UAC? Bring that up again I see. It's easy to turn off, but it's there for a reason. If it does anything, it lets the user know that their new operating system is at least questioning changes that could ruin the system. The days of noobs doing stupid things to kill their OS are numbered.

Not all of your apps will run with WinVista, unless you use "compatibility mode" or do some extra steps. *cough*Linux*cough*
But really, Vista is essentially for new PC's. We advise against Vista for most people unless they're starting fresh with a new computer/peripherals/software/etc. You're forgetting that the same thing happened with XP.

Which is why Microsoft extended WinXP for OEM's. That, and they make twice the revenue from selling 2 OS's at a time vs 1.

Look, I'm by no means a Microsoft lover. I hate the company and the crap they create. That being said, maybe people should use the OS before vomiting hating posts. We don't need any more uneducated views. Nothing personal to the above poster.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Sanat]

Billy G has mod points this week

Re:It depends upon the system.

[coolGuyZak]

What's worse is when you've been the anti-MS zealot, wizened up, and returned from the brink. You try your damnedest to like Microsoft, even recommending it to your clients... and subsequently hate the decision, hate Microsoft (again), and wonder why you ever offered MS a second chance. But now, you're stuck maintaining Windows-centric software, waiting for the resources to port operations to a UNIX/POSIX platform.

I try, I really do. Microsoft doesn't even make that easy enough. So, I bought a Mac.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

That may have been his point, but he was wrong. Microsoft nixed hardware audio acceleration in vista, so you cannot use a sound card with any real efficacy. Why do this? Partly, and the reason they commonly give, is that they wanted to take the audio stack out of kernel mode to "improve stability". This is why Vista is so much more stable than XP
The other part is more telling: It better enables Vista to process EVERY SINGLE SOUND that passes through it for a DRM signal as an attempt to make it impossible to bypass. After all, MS is infamous for anticompetitive, troublesome integration of their other software, like IE; and they sell DRM, so is it really surprising at all?

Re:It depends upon the system.

[StarkRG]

Vista is better than XP in a lot of ways. It's more stable, it's more secure (though the default is to be too secure to the point of being paranoid about it's own built-in functions, but that can be turned off). The compatibility problems will become less after a few months, and if you're buying a new computer it shouldn't be a problem (they should not be selling computers with incompatible HW with Vista pre-installed. The ability to run a program as an administrator without having to log out and log in AS the administrator is really nifty, like sudo.

Vista is the result of Microsoft realizing that POSIX based OSs are the future (as well as the past, ironically). The new security and access model is much closer to that of POSIX. They have also, for almost the first time ever, incorporated technologies and practices not actually invented at Microsoft (I say almost because they have done so in the past, though it usually felt like an afterthought, USB for example).

The lack of drivers will disappear (in other words, the drivers will appear) as soon as the HW companies get their act together. The program incompatibility will also disappear. It's similar to the transition from OS 9 and OS X, or from PPC to Intel. (save for the HW incompatibility, which is more like switching to Linux).

On a scale of 1 - 100 with 1 being a rock you dug out of your garden and 100 being an OS that reads your mind and does exactly what you want it to almost before you know you want it to do that. XP is a 7 and Vista is a 10 (Linux being a 75, OS X being an 80, Win 98SE is a 6, ME is a 5, 98 a 4, and 95 a 3). So, in the grand scheme of things Vista still sucks, but if I were forced to use Windows I'd use Vista over anything.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[HiThere]

Ok. It's not how I remember, but I wasn't paying much attention.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Skuld-Chan]

I use Vista - I don't notice any more cpu cycles being used - when the system is idle - its idle. DVD's seem to use the same resources as XP, and while I'm playing my divx files I downloaded using bittorrent on Vista they use the same cycles.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[JAlexoi]

WinVista lacks a LOT of drivers (for fairly common hardware, too). If you have hardware that WinVista doesn't support, you're unhappy (see years of previous complaints about Linux). Technically true, but mostly irrelevant. Vista will load 95% of XP drivers without a hitch - the easiest way is if the driver is shipped as an executable installer, since then even if you forget to set Compatibility Mode before running the installer, Vista will ask you if you want to re-run it in compatibility mode should the install fail. If it just comes as a .inf and .sys file, edit the INF to add Vista to the supported list, and right-click -> Install. The only caveats here are that network drivers won't work on account of the re-written network stack and new NDIS, and XP video drivers will work fine but you lose all the advantages of WDDM.

WinVista also has lots of eye-candy which eats up processor time. So it looks pretty, but runs slower. The eye-candy can be turned off, but then it looks a lot like WinXP. If your GPU is decently powerful (i.e. isn't an integrated solution that leeches off the CPU) you'll almost certainly not see this, as the "eye candy" you refer to (much of it, like the thumbnail views of your running programs, is actually very useful) is offloaded to the GPU. The overhead numbers I've heard for using this model are about 5%, and if you look at the CPU time taken by the DWM (Desktop Window Manager) I've never seen it go higher than 5% and it's usually at 0%

WinVista has a different security model than WinXP and it takes people some effort to learn and in the meantime, they're unhappy with it (again, see years of previous complaints about Linux). The people who see more than 2 or 3 UAC prompts per day, top (I'm using an exaggeratedly large number to catch the "yeah, but my program X always needs admin privileges and I run in 3 times a day" responses; most normal users see maybe this many a month) are either incessant tinkerers or admins who need full control. If you're the former, you probably know how to modify access control lists (even easier in Windows than chmod/chown) so things that you need to access and can access safely will run with your permissions. If you're the latter, either deal with a couple (literally, 2) extra seconds on most administrative tasks or run your account as an unrestricted admin (much like logging into a *nix box as root; it's occasionally handy but not something to do regularly). For the average user who shouldn't be using full admin privs all the time anyway (or your slightly-clued-in user who knows this and experienced the pain of doing things in XP as a non-admin), UAC is arguably Vista's best feature.

Not all of your apps will run with WinVista, unless you use "compatibility mode" or do some extra steps. Since Vista automatically offers to re-run most programs in Compatibility Mode if they didn't work without it, and since MS provides step-by-step instructions and a helpful wizard for resolving compatibility issues, and since it literally takes 5 clicks of the mouse to set compatibility mode to XP SP2, and since the vast majority of apps will run fine on Vista without any Compatibility Mode at all, this really doesn't seem like a major issue to me. So you are basically saying, it's like the trouble that you have to go though when using Linux with incompatible stuff? Certainly seems so....

Re:It depends upon the system.

[mikebesurfing]

So why should i have to do 5 extra clicks every time I want to run program X and that I run this porgram every day. Why would I pay to upgrade to something with tons of issues, they have been working on SP1 since before they sold it. Why should I have to get used to dealing with bugs aka (features) Just my 2 cents

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

XP Pro let you upgrade from 2K (or NT4? Not sure) Actually, you could upgrade from 98/ME with XP Pro, in addition to NT4 and 2000 :)

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Almahtar]

Vista will load 95% of XP drivers without a hitch ... The only caveats here are that network drivers won't work " Ummm, isn't that a HUGE caveat? Especially since that's the one driver that, if it doesn't work, you can't just go download? Besides, I would be a bit surprised if network drivers didn't add up to a lot more than 5% of all drivers.

and XP video drivers will work fine but you lose all the advantages of WDDM. Oh, now that WOULD be tragic.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[icepick72]

It's the little things that will make a huge deal in the longrun where Vista is concerned. One simple example is support for symbolic links in Windows for the first time. Sound a bit like *nix?. User Account Control is a security feature similar to a mechanism that's been present in other OS's for a while.
Your post hits on a couple of general points and discards the potential risk Microsoft poses to the other OS's should it keep enhancing Windows and moving it towards more specific features that will eventually lure big business and make the overall platform more robust.
Stay watchful or don't be surprised when it can't be discarded anymore with a curt comment.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[AmigaMMC]

Tell it to the millions of laptops that DO NOT HAVE a GPU.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Urza9814]

I gotta say, I didn't use Vista for very long, but I checked it out shortly after it was released, and I gotta say, ANY time I launched a program it was giving me a security alert and I couldn't figure out how to turn the damn things off. Even for windows components! I'd hit control panel, it'd pop up a security alert. I'd then hit the display or whatever icon, and it'd pop up _another_ security alert. I pretty much had to go through two or three of those things for every program I ran, not per day.

And that's why I run Linux. The WinXP installer won't install to the right drive (lost several months of data one time because it decided to format BOTH drives instead of the one I selected), and Vista just plain sucks.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a stretch on your part, but if it makes you feel better...

Re:It depends upon the system.

[drsmithy]

I had admin priviledges, and I got UAC prompts when I renamed files that I had created myself. In one case it prompted me before I had even finished typing the new file name. I got prompted pretty much once every minute before I finally figured out how to disable UAC.

You are either lying, or have _seriously_ b0rked your Windows install.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[johannesg]

XP video drivers will work fine but you lose all the advantages of WDDM.

Is that in any way noticeable? I mean, other than losing the warm, fuzzy feeling deep inside that you are running in the shiny new WDDM mode?

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Black Copter Control]

With Vista, if the eye-candy is turned on, they run like molasses. Which begs (for) the question: What about if eye-candy is turned off? That's how we'd figure out if the problem is the eye candy or the DRM?

My current thesis is that the eye-candy is simply intended as camouflage for the way that DRM eats CPU cycles. (Not that it doesn't eat CPU in it's own right.)

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Black Copter Control]

well, as you pointed out -- those things have been in other OSs for years (decades even), but they haven't turned those OS's into resource hogs. yeah, those things are nice to have -- but if you like those features, why not just go to the OSes that are at the source of those features rather than a pretender who gives you those capabilities at the cost of speed and freedom.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[strangel]

Windows 2000 was released on February 17, 2000. That's the day I bought it, and the version I bought (still sitting on my bookshelf) allowed me to upgrade from Windows 98 to 2000.
As a side note - I also bought XP the day it came out (Oct 15 2001). I thought it was a huge improvement over 2000, honestly. Although the first thing I did was enable the classic start button and look. ;)
I got Vista through MSDNAA the day it was released. I used it for 8 months and just couldn't stand the slowdowns and bugs, and switched back to XP.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any software architect should be able to handle it.
And it would come out later or be more expensive than something that mostly works most of the time fulfilling a need most people have. ad infinum. People trot this out all the time, it is not deemed necessary or worth the costs.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Ahh, you mean daemons which sit there and literally do nothing until a movie start playing?

Are you insinuating that you know with any degree of assurance how Microsoft put together their secret-souce, non-disclosure agreement protected DRM system? Are you an employee in Microsoft's DRM division?

Or are you perheaps attempting to imply that Microsoft is widely known and praised for well behaved, frugal with resources and CPU time background processes?

Ok, you think you know how the system works. Please post a reference that backs up your post. Otherwise, STFU.

I never claimed to "know" how the system works, that is merely a strawman you contructed yourself. I only pointed out that there is a number of possibilities, some of them very likely due to the nature of such designs, which you are apparently due to some zealotry quite unwilling to consider out of hand. As to "backing up" my claims, isn't this whole discussion about empirically observable (in many ways by now) general user dissatisfaction with Vista, in major part because of performance problems?

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Das Modell]

Right. Yeah. I must be either lying or I "b0rked" my install. It's not possible that Vista is simply a worthless piece of shit.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, I'd say it's a lie. Instead of giving more info so we could try to see which story could be correct you just resort to sarcasm and attacks.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Das Modell]

There's no more info to give, and I didn't attack him, I attacked Vista. He, however, accused me of lying.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[obarel]

XP was more stable than ME (the previous incarnation of Windows that I had installed on my computer). I could see the difference straight away, because it didn't feel as flaky. I didn't have any fancy hardware to support, so XP was pretty much what I needed (more stability).

My complaint here is not about Microsoft releasing operating systems before the computers are ready for them (it's a chicken and egg situation and I totally understand that), it's about retailers not giving an option. At the moment 2GB systems are not that common (at least around here), yet vista is forced on you. It would make sense to offer an alternative at least until 4GB machines were pretty much the standard (meaning their price was not in the "Advanced Gamers" range, but in the "Home User" range). I also understand that it's Microsoft not allowing retailers to do that, rather than retailers trying to annoy users. That's why I only complain on slashdot instead of going to the shop and demanding a refund...

Re:It depends upon the system.

[drsmithy]

Right. Yeah. I must be either lying or I "b0rked" my install. It's not possible that Vista is simply a worthless piece of shit.

Please detail how to reproduce the problem on a stock Vista install.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[MojoStan]

How about Quickbooks? Can't use compatibility mode here, you MUST upgrade to version 2007 or newer if you have Vista ($500-++?? for multiuser versions). MANY other industry specific apps are the same in my experience. Can you believe Intuit never bothered to get Windows XP certification for pre-2007 versions of Quickbooks? If Quickbooks was certified for Windows XP, then it would automatically be compatible with Windows Vista.

Quickbooks's "forbidden" behavior: In order to talk to Intuit or third party add-on software (a common occurrence for many users), Quickbooks writes to a part of the registry that requires Administrator privileges. Every competent developer knows this goes against Windows XP (and Windows 2000) programming guidelines. To allow for backwards compatibility, XP was more permissive than Vista. Vista is finally enforcing these guidelines.

Quickbooks, and any other "industry specific app" that requires Administrator privileges, sucks donkey balls.

• Berlind's Testbed - "Microsoft responds on backwards compatibility issue with Intuit QuickBooks"

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Das Modell]

There's nothing to detail. UAC kept prompting all the time and for almost everything I did. Simple as that.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[plague3106]

Are you insinuating that you know with any degree of assurance how Microsoft put together their secret-souce, non-disclosure agreement protected DRM system? Are you an employee in Microsoft's DRM division?

Or are you perheaps attempting to imply that Microsoft is widely known and praised for well behaved, frugal with resources and CPU time background processes?

I'm not the one making the extraordinary claims. You are; you need to prove your point, since its unlikely DRM affects you when you're not playing a movie. Especially considering MS has said as much. So PROVE them wrong, or shut it.

I never claimed to "know" how the system works, that is merely a strawman you contructed yourself. I only pointed out that there is a number of possibilities, some of them very likely due to the nature of such designs, which you are apparently due to some zealotry quite unwilling to consider out of hand. As to "backing up" my claims, isn't this whole discussion about empirically observable (in many ways by now) general user dissatisfaction with Vista, in major part because of performance problems?

No, you presented a single possibility, and made it sound as fact. Then you offer no proof to back up your claim, which is that its DRM slowing the system down, EVEN WHEN NOTHING IS BEING PLAYED. So please, back up your claim.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[mdwh2]

Who said it was? I'm no fan of either Microsoft or Apple, nor Linux or BSD. I'm just pointing out that "eye candy" can't be seen as a universal dislike, and is something many people give praise to - just trying posting a comment on a Mac OS X article about "CPU hogging eye-candy" and watch the post get modded down.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[fwarren]

If you don't play DRM content there is no problem

Wrong!

Even playing an mp3 file will cause the DRM slowdown.Unfortunately it is more a prodcut of the OS thinking any bits going out to speakers, a display, or being recorded could need DRM protection; than actually playing DRM restricted content.

DRM is a tax on using a Microsoft OS, even when you use media that you own or create. Try running real-time recording software on Vista.

What should aspiring musicians do when they want to record at home and Vista is the only Microsoft OS available for sale?

Re:It depends upon the system.

[gr8scot]

People trot this out all the time, it is not deemed necessary or worth the costs.

Some people like to deem, other people would rather trot.

That's why Adam Smith invented free markets.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[innerweb]

Unless I am missing something, if you turn off most of the stuff that makes Vista better than XP, what do you have beyond XP?

Serious question. I have used Vista, and am immensely unsatisfied with my experience (3GB Ram, 5600+ processor, Graphics Card) and still slower, clunkier and more prone to crash (as well as applications not working on it). I can not just recompile my applications for the new kernel. I can not just download new drivers. I can not just compile out parts of the OS I am not using, nor will ever use. So, I can not change my experience. What I am I getting for my money and time?

InnerWeb

Re:It depends upon the system.

[compulsiveguile]

I know this is why I dislike Vista and am planning to "downgrade." I have a MacBook Pro (more than enough power) running Vista Business using BootCamp, and I'm ready to switch to XP Pro. I know I'm probably not the best example to use (seeing that I'm not running a computer with Vista pre-installed)...

Besides the amount of space Vista takes up on my hard drive, I have had problems using my bluetooth keyboard, mouse, my 2nd monitor (driver is needed, and I simply can't find it). All the other quirky things (programs won't update, etc.) are enough to drive me away from Vista. I love the look and feel of Vista, but similar to other Vista users, I just can't tolerate all the inconveniences of performance. Thankfully, I have XP Pro available to me for free (*sigh* the benefits of being a college engineering student.) I really wished I liked Vista... I really do.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[mikael]

Which begs (for) the question: What about if eye-candy is turned off? That's how we'd figure out if the problem is the eye candy or the DRM?

When the eye-candy is turned off, the applications run perfectly as they did before on XP.

This is no surprise to any 3D device driver developer. Having two or more 3D applications running at the same time (Desktop + Application) is going to required context switching between the two 3D visuals. This is going to include texture maps stored in the hardware texture units, rendering settings, and all the associated vertex/fragment programs. This is going to happen every frame update.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[earlymon]

Since the eye candy is off-loaded to the GPU it doesn't take CPU time, so it is officially safe to ignore the rest of your post as ill-informed. I used to use VirtualPC with Win2k on an older Mac. Then I upgraded to XP. It was a barely-fast-enough machine as it was, but the results were interesting. You could see the classic windows appear and then get painted over by the XP theme (if that's the right word - sorry). So, I set appearance to Classic and it ran way better - almost Win2k like.

I think the interesting thing for me is that when Win98 came out, I recall seeing a lot of "it's still not an OS, it's a still a DOS overlay!" comments, and when XP came out, I *heard* a few stories like mine, but don't recall seeing them in print. Now Vista is here and .... is it really knowable how the eye candy is being dealt with? I'd like to presume that the repainting of classic windows disappeared a long time ago - but with fast-enough hardware, no way I can tell.

I've only heard (since at least Longhorn) how many gazillion lines of code are rewritten and how many bujillion lines are new. Given my examples above, and the source lines of code anecdotes, is there any reason for an outsider to believe the eye-candy is being handled correctly - or even well? I look at my Linux desktop, my OS X desktop, and even an old X11 desktop with Andrew's Window Manager (that's still running great, thanks) with layout and color changes I made so many years ago that I can't recall which files I twiddled - all of which look pretty great - and I wonder what amount of eye-candy is acceptable to require performance hits, either for the GPU or the CPU.

Someone please enlighten me on this.

I also hear how one of my Macs - the Mini - using an Intel GPU with CPU memory sharing is a total dog, despite the fact that it's optimized for something and is generally loved by the HDTV community, despite being hated by the Gamer community, and I wonder if apples and oranges get mixed up when people discuss GPU vs. OS vs. machine-target-audience. I'm not saying this to be cute or coy, I'm saying it because I don't follow GPU progress - nor do I feel a need to, except when a new Win comes out.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[aliquis]

By a mac or run Linux? (Linux is supposed to be good for audiostuff aswell I've heard.)

I didn't knew it was such an issue, sounds weird that it would fuck things up when not needed.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[msromike]

Yes, as long as you don't need to watch DVDs, or view content protected with DRM, or play games, or use personal financial software or share Office documents, then Linux will be fine. For the other 80% of the world they will probably continue to spend billions of dollars on the worst line of OS ever created.

Linux users are so smart, Windows users are so dumb. Linux is free, Windows is not. If I can't do it on Linux that means it really isn't important.

Excuse me I need to go play Call of Duty and then use Outlook to read my email. After that I will use Microsoft Money to settle the trades I did Thursday. Then I will probably read some of the new policies from work (sent in Word format.) Then I will rip my Good Eats DVDs and convert them to DivX. Then I will use the worst browser ever created to check the weather before we go to the Rockies game.

That's what I do on the computer. I should probably get Linux, oh yeah I would have to dual boot.

I have loaded up the latest, greatest distro in VMWare twice a year for the last 5 years. Every time I get done I say to myself, "now what?" Then I delete it all and go play MechWarrior or whatever.

Ciao.

P.S. Everything I wrote above is wrong because maybe I could use Open Office to read the Word documents I mentioned.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[macdaddy357]

Vista asks you "Is this ok? Is that OK?" every 2 seconds. It's annoying. Unless you turn off user account control, you are not allowed to do anything. If it gets hosed up and won't boot, and it probably will for no reason you can pinpoint, you will have to kiss your data goodbye. Even if you backup your hard drive before you wipe and re-install, you will be denied access to your data because of "security". I hope you used webmail, and not Outlook or Windows Mail. Windows Mail replaced Outlook Express, and doesn't let you show your address book in the lower left panel any more. Why? IE7 won't let you easily look through history like 6 did to see where the hell your kids have been on the net. Again, why? Media Player 11 is the most bloated resource hog I have ever seen, and it takes an eternity to to look through your library. Vista is worse than ME, but they spent a lot of time and money making it, so they are going to try to push it on us. If it weren't as complicated as Chinese arithmetic to the average user, everyone would probably switch to Linux.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Well, for one thing, XP has the 'phone home and kill Bill's ring' feature of mandatory validation. I prefer buying something and not requiring 'clearance' from anybody to install it on my machine and use it Understandable, but I'd say that falls under "new 'features' that people don't needs" as opposed to breakage, at least for the vast majority of the purchasing public. As far as the rest: to each his own. I just use XP and set to the "classic" interface; there's something about receiving regular security updates that I like. Call me kooky.

Other than that, I continually mourn the loss of the very efficient Windows NT4.0 file search function.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even playing an mp3 file will cause the DRM slowdown. Wrong!

The OS only checks those bits when DRMed audio is played, and only when you use Windows Media Player. So no, MP3 files with no DRM, or MP3 files with DRM played through other programs (eg Fairplayed iTunes tracks), are not subject to this fabled 'DRM slowdown'.

Also note that this DRM slowdown doesn't exist except in Guttman's head - the media path offloads all the decoding to itself, so all you see a CPU cycles transferred from being used on WMP to being used on a different process.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Macthorpe]

I didn't knew it was such an issue, sounds weird that it would fuck things up when not needed. It's not and it doesn't. GP is probably sourcing all his 'knowledge' from the Peter Guttman affair which was inaccurate from the start.

I'm actually running Vista and it doesn't set off the media path when you just play an MP3.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Macthorpe]

To clarify to be completely accurate, if you play MP3s using Windows Media Player, it sets off the path but doesn't protect the content unless the flag is enabled, and average CPU usage is less than 1%.

If you play an MP3 using any other software, the path doesn't trigger at all.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[adolf]

Can't use compatibility mode here, you MUST upgrade to version 2007 or newer if you have Vista ($500-++?? for multiuser versions).

Must?

Quickbooks 2005 has been running just fine on Vista, at least for me. I just installed it from the CD like I would anything else, applied updates like I would anything else, and it's been running just fine, just like everything else.

Am I missing something?

Re:It depends upon the system.

[fwarren]

Easy to fix, ok, for us.

Uninstall Norton!

Re:It depends upon the system.

[mjwx]

Compiz doesn't even seem to hurt older HW. I have an old Celeron M 1.6 MHz laptop with 1 GB RAM and an Intel 915 IGM which runs compiz on Ubuntu 7.04 as well as my Athlon X2 6000+ and Geforce 8800 GTS. Beryl on the other hand, I experience the odd sluggishness when doing a lot graphically intensive tasks (under beryl minimising and maximising are graphically intensive). Haven't tried using Beryl on the old laptop.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I'm not the one making the extraordinary claims.

So simple logic and observation seem to you "extraordinary"? Now when you mention it, that would explain a lot of thigs...

You are; you need to prove your point, since its unlikely DRM affects you when you're not playing a movie.

As I pointed out already, if you insert piles of code into every subsystem involved in video and audio playback, it must affect complexity and with it performance to some degree. There is no escaping from this simple, logical fact, no matter how much do you wish it were otherwise.

Especially considering MS has said as much.

LOL! The dude is actually invoking Microsft as an objective, disinterested authority on accusations against Microsoft! Talk about uncritical, slavish adoration. Absolutely priceless!

So PROVE them wrong, or shut it.

I already did, quite conclusively. Just like one cannot squeeze blood from stone, one cannot add complicated code to critical system data pathways and not increase complexity, thus decreasing performance. Even if the code in question is intended to be "off" when not used. The very requirements for implementation of these subsystems by vendors of, for example, graphics adapter drivers will cause them to pepper their code with "if then else" clauses at the minimum and additional blocks of instructions dealing with encryption and key handling, all which require to be properly obfuscated and thus large in size, reducing the memory available for other tasks even in the most optimistic scenario, and thus reducing performance even if indirectly due to reducing caching. And this does not even begin to touch other of the many aspects of DRM.

Your arguments reek of some mad-man's defense of his "perpetual motion machine" invention, raving and raging against skeptics about how his miraculous device is producing "something out of nothing" and how they should go prove him wrong, despite everyone observing by naked eye that the thing is slowing down .... never you mind things like the laws of theromodynamics.

... which is that its DRM slowing the system down, EVEN WHEN NOTHING IS BEING PLAYED. So please, back up your claim.

See above. The only argument that is feasible is that of how much is the system slowed down. Not if.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[plague3106]

Your argument is that you know exactly how such a system MUST have been built. Anything else in your mind is excluded automatically.

The truth is you're only guessing, what you said is contrary to how MS said they built the system, and you claim that is proof that you are absolutely correct.

Its pretty easy to see the zealotry you are coming from; you paint the whole of MS with one brush, when the reality is that it is a large company, with many departments that actually DO have conflicting images. No different than saying "the government" is spying on you, when in fact the department of Forestry doesn't care about you at all unless you enter a national park, and even they, aren't spying on you.

You've proven nothing; you spout garbage out of your keyboard and expect everyone to accept it as fact. If Vista runs slower, its much more likely because its doing alot more than XP did. Things that have nothing to do with DRM, such as Superfetch, the new indexing server, sync center and a host of other new services. I don't expect you to know this, I don't think you've ever even booted Vista. Not suprising, since this is /. I guess.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Your argument is that you know exactly how such a system MUST have been built. Anything else in your mind is excluded automatically.

That is because, as a programmer with decades of experience, I do know, with absolute certainty, that it is how it must be built. I might not know the specific details (which are jealously guarded by MS) but the general principles are involatile and inescapable. Just like the laws of thermodynamics.

The truth is you're only guessing, what you said is contrary to how MS said they built the system, and you claim that is proof that you are absolutely correct.

Microsoft PR departament has claimed so many incorrect things over the years that it boggles one's mind. As to guessing, I am no more doing so then pointing out that 2+2=4. It is simply physically impossible to do what you (and the Microsoft PR flacks - if it is indeed what they are claiming, although I would think they would be much more vague and evasive then you are) claim has been done.

Its pretty easy to see the zealotry you are coming from; you paint the whole of MS with one brush, when the reality is that it is a large company, with many departments that actually DO have conflicting images. No different than saying "the government" is spying on you, when in fact the department of Forestry doesn't care about you at all unless you enter a national park, and even they, aren't spying on you.

As I already pointed out, my feelings on Microsoft are irrelevant to the fact that laws of physics prevent them from accomplishing miracles, such as insertion of large amount of any code into any computer program and not suffering the resulting consequences.

If Vista runs slower, its much more likely because its doing alot more than XP did.

Such as implementing DRM.

Bonus points for contradicting yourself within 3 posts.

Things that have nothing to do with DRM, such as Superfetch, the new indexing server, sync center and a host of other new services.

No one has claimed that those too do not impact performance.

Also, additional bonus points for contradicting yourself in claiming that Microsoft PR is to be trusted while listing the supposedly "performance enhancing" Superfetch as a cause of performance problems. Do you actually pause to think before spewing this crap?

I don't expect you to know this, I don't think you've ever even booted Vista.

My booting or not of Vista has nothing whatsoever do to with general principles of Computer Science. Nor it is a requirement for me to have first-hand experience when discussing an article based on large scale statistical reports of user experiences.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Cro Magnon]

All I know is, I never got a UAC prompt while moving, renaming, or deleting files. The only time I remember getting them was when Firefox wanted to upgrade itself. Are you sure you weren't using a beta version?

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Cro Magnon]

So don't try and install it on a low powered PC. Consumers want the eye candy so they can say 'wow, that looks nice'. People still install Norton Anti-virus, so having a fast PC is clearly not a concern for your average punter

The vendors are PUTTING Vista on underpowered PCs. My GF's sister was going to buy a Vista box with 512M RAM (yikes) before I talked her out of it. I suspect much of the Vista-hate from non-geeks comes from that.

And I don't think people install Norton Virus. It comes with the box and stays there until someone who knows how bad it is nukes it.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[plague3106]

That is because, as a programmer with decades of experience, I do know, with absolute certainty, that it is how it must be built. I might not know the specific details (which are jealously guarded by MS) but the general principles are involatile and inescapable. Just like the laws of thermodynamics.

Not a very good one then. I am a programmer with decades of experience as well, and I thought out quite a few ways it could be done without a constant drain on resources. Maybe its time you retire?

Microsoft PR departament has claimed so many incorrect things over the years that it boggles one's mind. As to guessing, I am no more doing so then pointing out that 2+2=4. It is simply physically impossible to do what you (and the Microsoft PR flacks - if it is indeed what they are claiming, although I would think they would be much more vague and evasive then you are) claim has been done.

Well, good thing its not MS PR that has said the DRM doesn't affect your system if you're not playing back protected content then. I'd also like to hear of any PR department on any company of size the really knows what they are talking about.

As I already pointed out, my feelings on Microsoft are irrelevant to the fact that laws of physics prevent them from accomplishing miracles, such as insertion of large amount of any code into any computer program and not suffering the resulting consequences.

You seem to be confusing physics with building software. Again, just because your firmly in the box mind can't think of a way to acomplish such a task, doesn't mean its not possible.

Such as implementing DRM.

Bonus points for contradicting yourself within 3 posts.

Did you forget your glasses or something? You think that DRM is the only possible reason for a system to run more slowly? Surely other, non-DRM services running DO have an impact on performance? I never said that DRM hurt performace when nothing protected was being played, so I fail to see how I've contradicted myself.

No one has claimed that those too do not impact performance.

Fine. Then prove that its DRM causing problems when you're not playing protected content. Your logic is flawed; just because you can't think of anyway it couldn't interfere, doesn't mean that it does.

Also, additional bonus points for contradicting yourself in claiming that Microsoft PR is to be trusted while listing the supposedly "performance enhancing" Superfetch as a cause of performance problems. Do you actually pause to think before spewing this crap?

I never once brought up MS PR, or attributed anything to that department. They aren't the ones claiming that DRM doesn't affect anything unless you're playing back protected content.

I also never claimed SuperFetch worked (please, point out where I have). I'm sure it also doesn't work 100% of the time. Can it work? Sure, i haven't found a need to disable it yet, as my computers with Vista have all been performing very well. Even my old desktop with 1GB of ram and an old FX 5700 video card.

I noticed you never actually have claimed to even have used Vista either.. interesting that someone can make claims such as you, seemingly, without having used it.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[ultranova]

Not all of your apps will run with WinVista, unless you use "compatibility mode" or do some extra steps.

And even if you do use compatibility mode, programs may still either refuse to run outright or crash randomly. Furthermore, every time a compatibility mode switches Aero off, Vista feels it's neccessary to pop up a message saying so. Finally, whenever something crashes, a message saying something to the effect of sending info to Microsoft pops up. Oh, and one update made the photo album software unable to save edited photos, but that thankfully was fixed by the next update.

Granted, the laptop I'm referring to came with Symantec crapware installed, so some of the problems may be caused by that. It seems to be running into some kind of problems constantly; funny how F-Secure antivirus in XP just works.

Still, as is, I'd heavily recommend against Vista. If you must run Windows, XP is reasonably good and least likely to run into problems. Vista offers Aero, but in the end that's just eye candy, and an endless series of headaches.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I am a programmer with decades of experience as well, and I thought out quite a few ways it could be done without a constant drain on resources.

Oh, for Pete's sake, name one. Show a code snippet, in any language of your choice, with and without DRM calls. Then explain how they are executed in the same number of machine instructions and how they occupy the same amount of memory.

Needles to say I am not holding by breath waiting for that Earth-shattering, space-time-continuum-defying demonstration.

You seem to be confusing physics with building software.

Sure, that is because software does not execute on physical objects such as ... let me think ... a CPU, no? And naturally we are not discussing observable physical phenomena such as ... oh I don't know ... comparative time between events, certainly?

You think that DRM is the only possible reason for a system to run more slowly?

Nice strawman. Now point me to a place where I claimed that DRM is the only reason for Vista being a hog.

I never once brought up MS PR, or attributed anything to that department. They aren't the ones claiming that DRM doesn't affect anything unless you're playing back protected content.

Let me refresh your memory:

Says you:

... what you said is contrary to how MS said they built the system ...

You do realize that the stuff you are spouting can be recalled just by scrolling up? Next thing you will be saying that it is possible for anything to officially come out of Microsoft that is not approved by the PR spin-meisters...

I also never claimed SuperFetch worked (please, point out where I have).

Neither did I claim that you said that SuperFetch worked. I merely pointed out that you are listing it as a reason for Vista being slow, in direct contradiction to Microsoft who instist that SuperFetch is a "performance enhancing feature", and yet, in the same breath you are telling me how things are because Microsoft said so. That is the contradiction, although it appears that you are incapable of comprehending it.

Seeing, in this exchange, all of your reasoning powers, I sincerely hope that I never have the grave misfortune of using any code you wrote. And I pity all the poor sods who do.

I noticed you never actually have claimed to even have used Vista either.. interesting that someone can make claims such as you, seemingly, without having used it.

I already explained how it is not only possible, but quite ordinary to be in that position in regards to the main topic of this discussion.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Das Modell]

Not a beta. Came with a Fujitsu Siemens laptop (which now has XP on it).

Re:It depends upon the system.

[plague3106]

Oh, for Pete's sake, name one. Show a code snippet, in any language of your choice, with and without DRM calls. Then explain how they are executed in the same number of machine instructions and how they occupy the same amount of memory.

Ya, right. I'm going to wipe up a quick code snippet on a complex DRM system. Get real. The concept is what's important. I'll give you a hint; it would involve knowing the machine is in a drm "safe" state when playback starts. Devices in the loop will invoke a monitor if their state changes (line single changes, etc.). When that happens, another check will be performed and if the check fails, stop playback.

Needles to say I am not holding by breath waiting for that Earth-shattering, space-time-continuum-defying demonstration.

Needless to say, you're a dolt.

Sure, that is because software does not execute on physical objects such as ... let me think ... a CPU, no? And naturally we are not discussing observable physical phenomena such as ... oh I don't know ... comparative time between events, certainly?

Ahh, so because software runs on a chip, it can't possibly not run certain code. Interesting theory.

Nice strawman. Now point me to a place where I claimed that DRM is the only reason for Vista being a hog.

You never once presented any other reason for poorer system performance. You don't even acknowledge it could be possible until I bring it up. You state, DRM is THE reason Vista has performance problems. You must be; otherwise, you'd be saying its those other things slowing the system down, and DRM becomes insignificant in comparison.

You do realize that the stuff you are spouting can be recalled just by scrolling up? Next thing you will be saying that it is possible for anything to officially come out of Microsoft that is not approved by the PR spin-meisters...

Ahh yes because developers at MS are all soul-less, mindless droids that can't do anything on their own. Sure. Especially those known personally by someone I know personally. Yup, sure.

Neither did I claim that you said that SuperFetch worked. I merely pointed out that you are listing it as a reason for Vista being slow, in direct contradiction to Microsoft who instist that SuperFetch is a "performance enhancing feature", and yet, in the same breath you are telling me how things are because Microsoft said so. That is the contradiction, although it appears that you are incapable of comprehending it.

Maybe you should re-read what I said about government and how your line of thinking leads to the Dept. of Forestry spying on our phone calls...

Seeing, in this exchange, all of your reasoning powers, I sincerely hope that I never have the grave misfortune of using any code you wrote. And I pity all the poor sods who do.

Right, because you know me really well from a whole three posts on a site I visit when I'm bored. Then you question MY reasoning ability? If you must know, my code is in health care software for use by radiologists, and is apparently written so well that in the years since I've left, they are now taking my code and internationalizing it (yes, they would like me to come back). My current employer is literally running their business off my software, and it will soon be managing their entire inventory.

I already explained how it is not only possible, but quite ordinary to be in that position in regards to the main topic of this discussion.

Typical /., bashing something from a company who's software they have not used in years, know nothing about MS' development processes, yet continue to say "Win95 was so much the suxor nothing they ever make could be good!!!111!!" Whatever. Get over it, Unix / Linux is the be all end all of OSes.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Ya, right. I'm going to wipe up a quick code snippet on a complex DRM system.

I did not ask you for a "complex system". Just for an example of 2 lines of code without a call to a DRM check and 2 same lines with a call to DRM subroutine insterted between to demonstrate the utter impossibility of adding optional code without incurring cost in instruction cycles or memory. Oh but then I get it, this is too "complex" for you.

The concept is what's important.

That's right. The very concept I already explained ad nauseum and which zoomed at great velocity so far above your head that it might as well be in orbit.

I'll give you a hint; it would involve knowing the machine is in a drm "safe" state when playback starts.

Which requires copious amounts of code to check if the machine is in a DRM "safe" state, thus increasing complexity and decreasing performance. This check has to occur continuously with assistance of tamper-resistant hardware, prior to activation of the playback, otherwise it is completely useless from the point of view of ensuring DRM security, as without it an attacker can set the machine to a "safe" state via a multitude of spoofing mechanisms, such as virtualization, amongst many others. This understanding of the integrity of the security environment (of which you are apparently completely, blissfully, comically ignorant) is the cornerstone of all advanced DRM designs, and the very foundation behind the TPM which computes a running, real-time, encrypted, securely remotely verifiable checksum of all instuctions executed by the CPU (and other system activities) since a given reset point, long prior to entering the actual service routine (a video playback in this case) in a secure environment.

Devices in the loop will invoke a monitor if their state changes (line single changes, etc.). When that happens, another check will be performed and if the check fails, stop playback.

Your inane incompetence makes me laugh. "Devices in the loop" involve things such as the ... audio adapter drivers, which would have to "monitor their state" (by magical means you neglected to describe) with every sound sample (which is a state change at 44,000 times a second in a typical 2-channel audio stream) and would have to be able to do so in the "DRM mode" and also not do so outside of it, that is on demand, the code for all this being of course embedded in the said drivers. This of course ignores, with blissful ignorance you are so fond of, multiple encryption/decryption stages, requirements for which are part of all DRM schemes. Not to mention that the critical elements of this have to be implemented by the 3rd party developers of drivers for hardware designed in Taiwan, so widely known for quality, highly efficient and well behaved code...

You never once presented any other reason for poorer system performance

I also failed to bring up a comparison chart between SAS and SATA hard drives and the migratory habits of Seagulls. Could it possibly be because I replied to a post claiming that DRM is one of those miraculously side-effect free achievments in the vain of "Have your cake and eat it too!" or "Build your own perpetual motion machine!" from someone who clearly has no idea what DRM systems entail?

Ahh, so because software runs on a chip, it can't possibly not run certain code. Interesting theory.

Yes indeed. The program cannot miraculously, via psychic powers, jump from instruction A to B whenever you wish it to happen or from A to C when you do not. There has to be some condition check, which is also an instruction somewhere after A and before B and C (or the second instruction is a variation on an indirect jump via a memory location to C or B, which has its own overheads and problems). In our case that condi

Re:It depends upon the system.

[plague3106]

I did not ask you for a "complex system". Just for an example of 2 lines of code without a call to a DRM check and 2 same lines with a call to DRM subroutine insterted between to demonstrate the utter impossibility of adding optional code without incurring cost in instruction cycles or memory. Oh but then I get it, this is too "complex" for you.

I guess the concept I already posted about is too complex for you to understand, for if you understood semaphores or monitors you would be able to come up with the rest of the details yourself.

Which requires copious amounts of code to check if the machine is in a DRM "safe" state, thus increasing complexity and decreasing performance. This check has to occur continuously with assistance of tamper-resistant hardware, prior to activation of the playback, otherwise it is completely useless from the point of view of ensuring DRM security, as without it an attacker can set the machine to a "safe" state via a multitude of spoofing mechanisms, such as virtualization, amongst many others. This understanding of the integrity of the security environment (of which you are apparently completely, blissfully, comically ignorant) is the cornerstone of all advanced DRM designs, and the very foundation behind the TPM which computes a running, real-time, encrypted, securely remotely verifiable checksum of all instuctions executed by the CPU (and other system activities) since a given reset point, long prior to entering the actual service routine (a video playback in this case) in a secure environment.

No, stupid, it doesn't require constant checks unless something is being played back. One check is required when playback is started, and the next check would be when some relevent part of the state of the machine changes. Those changes can be signeled using semaphores or monitors.

Your inane incompetence makes me laugh. "Devices in the loop" involve things such as the ... audio adapter drivers, which would have to "monitor their state" (by magical means you neglected to describe) with every sound sample (which is a state change at 44,000 times a second in a typical 2-channel audio stream) and would have to be able to do so in the "DRM mode" and also not do so outside of it, that is on demand, the code for all this being of course embedded in the said drivers. This of course ignores, with blissful ignorance you are so fond of, multiple encryption/decryption stages, requirements for which are part of all DRM schemes. Not to mention that the critical elements of this have to be implemented by the 3rd party developers of drivers for hardware designed in Taiwan, so widely known for quality, highly efficient and well behaved code...

Audio drives must be single threaded? They cannot send a message to another part of the system? Messages they are already likely sending? Is your mind locked in some kind of titanium box or something? You're under the asumption that drivers already AREN'T reporting various status of some kind. Something external to the drives can then do the monitoring, and that external thing can be told to start or stop.

Yes indeed. The program cannot miraculously, via psychic powers, jump from instruction A to B whenever you wish it to happen or from A to C when you do not. There has to be some condition check, which is also an instruction somewhere after A and before B and C (or the second instruction is a variation on an indirect jump via a memory location to C or B, which has its own overheads and problems). In our case that condition check has to be performed in multiple points, in multiple subsystems all over the OS and with a frequency corresponding to a frame of visual data or playback of each sound sample. Not to mention all of the other security considerations involved in DRM schemes which have to be met irrespective of playback being in progress. Something, you've spent a number of posts now trying to desperately wish away.

I'm not trying to wish anything away; I've already explai

Re:It depends upon the system.

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I guess the concept I already posted about is too complex for you to understand, for if you understood semaphores or monitors you would be able to come up with the rest of the details yourself.

You are a complete moron. Semaphores and monitors (at least as that term is used in the same context as semaphores) are mechanisms used to synchronize threads and processes, with quite significant computational overhead may I add (particularly the monitors) as both involve deep calls into the kernel in modern multi-core/multi-CPU systems complicated by predictive branching, caching and multi-pipeline instruction execution (not to mention the whole rigmarole of wrapper code and access routines used in the monitor approach to concurrency).

Oh and they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with security or DRM.

No, stupid, it doesn't require constant checks unless something is being played back. One check is required when playback is started, and the next check would be when some relevent part of the state of the machine changes. Those changes can be signeled using semaphores or monitors.

I think you really believe this! Well then, you should really seek a job in one of those inane DRM software outfits which gave us Shift-key bypassable CD rootkits or Media Defender style "anti-piracy defense". With clowns like you around "contributing", our job to crack this stuff would be child's play. I am looking forward to you reinventing ROT-13 or XOR "encryption"!

Audio drives must be single threaded?

But of course! Listen up everyone! A breakthrough in Computer Science! Our resident Genius, plague3106, determined that splitting a task into multiple parallel threads magically reduces the overall computational requirements and memory footprint! All possible by Magical Overhead-Free Semaphores and Fairy-Tale Pixie-dust Monitors! The Nobel Prize cannot be far behind, surely?

They cannot send a message to another part of the system? Messages they are already likely sending?

Yes they are sending "messages" in the vain of "Hey! Did you hear? plague3106 is a complete nimrod!".

You're under the assumption that drivers already AREN'T reporting various status of some kind. Something external to the drives can then do the monitoring, and that external thing can be told to start or stop.

This is just too stupid for words. This idiot must have learned about concurrency in some book titled "Computing for Total Cretins" as the cure-all solution to all security problems, particularly DRM. Just you wait till he gets to a chapter wherein they describe memmap and shared memory...

Apparently it never crossed his mind, security genius that he is, that someone could just replace whatever process is he synchronizing with, using his cure-all semaphores, with a fake one doing the very same thing and the other process would not be any wiser. Never you mind that the actual objective of a cracker is to obtain the DRM decryption key rather then to mess around with multi-process synchronization, against which this whole "approach" does precisely didley squat, leaving the crown jewels out in the open by the front door while he is screwing around with multi-threading in the proverbial outhouse.

I've already explained (and you fail to understand)

I am afraid that I discovered the reason for this. One has to be under the influence of some rather potent mind altering substances to enter the rarefied state of mind you possess. Fortunately, I do not do drugs.

... how a system can be present and not affect performance when not in use. You just continue to claim its not possible. Oh well.

That is because of the nature of the system in question prevents you from doing that! DRM is not some sort of optional DLL one can delete without altering the

Re:It depends upon the system.

[cbhacking]

You don't need to do it every time. Do it exactly once (it's in the file properties for executables or links to executables) and it stays set until you tell it otherwise. If the program is a installer, all executables it creates will automatically have compatibility mode set. Once compatibility mode is set, you never need to even think about it again; just run the program the same way you would run any other.

Out of curiosity, have you ever been through a Windows upgrade cycle before? Compatibility Mode has been around since at least Windows 2000; I have a number of old games that won't run in 2000 (or XP or Vista) without setting compatibility mode clear back to Windows 95 level. Ironically, the newer the OS is, the better the compatibility for some of those programs gets; 95-era apps that had no sound in 2000 might run perfectly in Vista, for example. Strange stuff.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[cbhacking]

2 points:

File access will only give a UAC prompt if you don't have full permissions for that file. This generally means anything on the system volume outside your personal folders. Out of curiosity, how often do you need to do this? I'm reasonably certain I must have done it at least once in the last 2 months, but no specific occasion is coming to me. I have ownership of nearly everything on my data partition, and that's where almost all the files I would be modifying are stored. If you want to make an entire folder under your control so no UAC prompts appear when working in said folder, right click the folder, choose Properties, go to Security, click Advanced, and make whatever changes you like (the easiest is to go to the Owner tab and change the folder ownership to yourself; this will need one UAC prompt). Select "Replace owner on subcontainers and objects" (or similar, if you aren't changing ownership but some other property) and click OK a few times. It should show you a quick progress display as Vista recursively changes all the file owners (or whatever) and in the end you'll have all the access you want. Honestly, it's not that hard...

The "two times" thing is a little silly on MS's part, but technically only one of those is a UAC prompt. The other asks whether you want to use UAC to get privilege escalation. The only reason I can think of for this first dialog is because there's some overhead (and annoyance, if you're working on a variety of things at once) associated with switching to the secure desktop where UAC prompts appear, so it's giving you an option to cancel the privilege escalation before the UAC prompt appears. If there's another reason, I've never heard of it, and I wish MS would provide an option to skip the "confirm UAC action" box, but I'm not losing any sleep over it - as I believe I mentioned, I almost never see those prompts.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[cbhacking]

Certainly noticeable. There's one big reason: stability. In XP, video driver crashes were responsible for over 20% of BSoDs, according to the crash report analysis. In Vista (with WDDM), a driver crash causes the screen to freeze for a second or two, flicker, and come back to life. I've seen it happen, both with beta ATI drivers back around a year ago, and with (released) nVidia drivers as recently as this month (seriously guys, WTF? You used to be good.)

DX10 and the Desktop Compositor used for Aero both also require WDDM drivers.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[cbhacking]

I'm in a generous mood today, so I'll give you the benefit of a doubt that you're not trolling and actually have had problems. A couple of quick points, though:

If you don't want a file/program to cause a UAC prompt, change that file/program so that you have sufficient permissions on the file itself, the folder it's in, and any files or folders that it accesses or modifies (also if it needs to change Registry settings in restricted parts of the Registry, this will be a problem). If the program is still raising UAC prompts, click the Details button on the prompt and see exactly what is causing it. If that doesn't help - for example, if it's just the program itself - right-click the program, go to Properties, to Compatibility, and make sure Run as Administrator isn't checked.

Control panels raising UAC prompts? No shit, Sherlock. UAC is designed to prevent harmful modifications - accidental or intentional - and short of the Registry (which also requires a prompt to edit) or issuing a rm -rf type command on a system folder (which doesn't entirely work in Windows anyway due to file locking), many items in the Control Panel could be described as "easy, user-friendly ways to screw up your system."

If a given program was started with elevated permissions (via UAC), nothing it does will cause another prompt. If only very specific portions of the program need admin privs (and the program itself was started with standard privs), it is possible to get multiple prompts if you try and do multiple such actions, but this is an uncommon situation.

As a random question, how often do you type your root (or user, if using sudo) password on your Linux system? Personally I like being able to trigger the elevation with just a click, but if you want it more Linux-style you can configure UAC to act that way too.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[cbhacking]

Your point about "just go download" the driver is only valid to a point; I'm talking about drivers that just aren't available for Vista; having network connectivity won't help if the driver just isn't out there. Personally, ever since Vista's public Beta 2 (build 5384, released in... April of last year?) I've never had a problem with any Ethernet or built-in WiFi drivers; Vista-compatible versions were available and installed automatically. One very small third-party company had no driver for a outdated external WiFi card, and I once needed to install a third-party VPN client and needed a Vista-compatible version, but beyond that it's not been a problem.

Your comment about "a lot more than 5% of all drivers" is, in a word, ludicrous. How many network devices (or virtual devices, like VPNs) do you think there are? There are drivers for everything from webcams to processors to printers to keyboard to cameras to digital audio players to video cards to HAM radios to external storage devices to... bah. You've GOT to be joking, honestly... you only need one network driver per device chipset, and there really aren't too many of those.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[Urza9814]

I haven't needed to type in my root password in a couple days. And the reason I don't think control panel should have a UAC is because the UAC window says "UAC helps stop unauthorized changes to your computer." ...so it's not 'we think you'll do something to break it', it's 'we don't know that this program is safe to run'.

But that's far from the only reason I prefer Linux. A major issue is the fact that Freenet, which I have running 24/7 on my Linux node without any noticeable slowing of the system, will usually crash WinXP in under ten minutes, and won't run at all on Vista. Oh, and setting up servers are a hell of a lot easier on Linux. I can download, install, and configure an FTP, SSH, HTTP, etc. server in under 5 minutes usually. And hell, installing programs in general is easier. Urpmi is ten times quicker than loading up a browser, trying to find a good, free program to do what you want, downloading it, and going through its installer.

Re:It depends upon the system.

[plague3106]

You are a complete moron. Semaphores and monitors (at least as that term is used in the same context as semaphores) are mechanisms used to synchronize threads and processes, with quite significant computational overhead may I add (particularly the monitors) as both involve deep calls into the kernel in modern multi-core/multi-CPU systems complicated by predictive branching, caching and multi-pipeline instruction execution (not to mention the whole rigmarole of wrapper code and access routines used in the monitor approach to concurrency).

Support for them is already there though, and has been for some time. A monitor can be used to make a thread sleep until something it cares about happens. Of course since you never saw the code the NT kernel uses to implement them, you really can't say how much overhead they use. I'd think any modern OS is smart enough not to even bother with a process / thread if its waiting to be pulsed.

Oh and they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with security or DRM.

And yet using them in a DRM system seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, especially if you don't want code checking all the time the state of the system; instead, the system notifies interested parties when something changes, and the check is done then. If nothing is monitoring, nothing is notified.

I think you really believe this! Well then, you should really seek a job in one of those inane DRM software outfits which gave us Shift-key bypassable CD rootkits or Media Defender style "anti-piracy defense". With clowns like you around "contributing", our job to crack this stuff would be child's play. I am looking forward to you reinventing ROT-13 or XOR "encryption"!

I explain how you could create such a system, and you claim its impossible. I don't think my coding skills are the ones that need to be questioned.

But of course! Listen up everyone! A breakthrough in Computer Science! Our resident Genius, plague3106, determined that splitting a task into multiple parallel threads magically reduces the overall computational requirements and memory footprint! All possible by Magical Overhead-Free Semaphores and Fairy-Tale Pixie-dust Monitors! The Nobel Prize cannot be far behind, surely?

It only adds overhead when DRM is in use. Otherwise the audio drives (or video) continue to operate the same, whether or not DRM is in place.

Yes they are sending "messages" in the vain of "Hey! Did you hear? plague3106 is a complete nimrod!".

The typical response of trolls. Assert something is true, and never stop and think they could possibly be wrong.

I am afraid that I discovered the reason for this. One has to be under the influence of some rather potent mind altering substances to enter the rarefied state of mind you possess. Fortunately, I do not do drugs.

No, but it seems you are suffering brain damage from ringing bells next to your ears and yelling loudly. Bill O'riely would be proud.

This is just too stupid for words. This idiot must have learned about concurrency in some book titled "Computing for Total Cretins" as the cure-all solution to all security problems, particularly DRM. Just you wait till he gets to a chapter wherein they describe memmap and shared memory...

I see you've never heard of WMI then..

Oh I see, the "MS has said ..." has by now been downgraded to "an anonymous dude who said he works for MS on that Vista Rulez online forum said ..."

Not anonymous to me, or my friend. I know when you know someone personally that it only means you talked to them online, but most of us actually are in the same room as people we know personally.

This guy is something else. Doesn't he realize how defensive does he sound? Next thing we will learn the whole sob story about how he really wants to make compilers while the cruel businessmen stop him from touching anything besides accounting software and some confused ramblin

Re:It depends upon the system.

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Support for them is already there though, and has been for some time. A monitor can be used to make a thread sleep until something it cares about happens. Of course since you never saw the code the NT kernel uses to implement them, you really can't say how much overhead they use. I'd think any modern OS is smart enough not to even bother with a process / thread if its waiting to be pulsed.

Well, that is the whole point of calling the kernel for process synchronization, that the scheduler can reusme threads suspended waiting for semaphores, mutexes, spinlocks and what not. The overhead is inherent in calling into the ring 0, in addition to the fact that in some cases the kernel must flush the CPU cache to get reliably at some control variables. That is why in many cases single threaded processes are more efficient then multi-threaded ones, and the primary reason for parallelization of them up is either logical clarity or better responsiveness (although not necessarily performance) and thus subjective user experience in interactive GUI applications.

Needless to say none of this has anything to do with security or DRM.

And yet using them in a DRM system seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, especially if you don't want code checking all the time the state of the system; instead, the system notifies interested parties when something changes, and the check is done then. If nothing is monitoring, nothing is notified.

Which is useless from the point of view of security and DRM in particular. That is because in addition to the fact that the attacker can easily manipulate code in the said threads as there is nothing to stop him from modifying it to his needs, he does not even have to bother with that, as the Holy Grail of anti-DRM activities, the decryption key itself (or the decrypted data) is not possible to be protected by semaphores, spinlocks, mutexes and all the other task synchronization mechanisms. They are simply not applicable to this whole different domain.

I explain how you could create such a system, and you claim its impossible. I don't think my coding skills are the ones that need to be questioned.

So far you've "explained" your conviction that semaphores are a security mechanism ...

It only adds overhead when DRM is in use. Otherwise the audio drives (or video) continue to operate the same, whether or not DRM is in place.

Sigh. Even if semaphores were some sort of security solution, which they are not, insertion of multiple calls to the kernel and multiple if-then-else clauses into the code to activate them if needed would affect the performance, not to mention, again, piles of code dealing with encryption/decryption. And you stubbornly keep neglecting the fact that all of this is insufficient to stop an attacker from simply extacting what he needs from the system during playback.

That is why DRM must be a systemic entity, amongst other things ensuring that no one can compromise the environment in which these drivers function to get at the critical data. That is why the system must be in a "trusted" state all the time prior to the playback. Once compromised at any time prior to the playback, the game is over as the drivers (and all the other DRM components) become exposed to run-time manipulation and examination by the attacker.

Which of course means that DRM functions are operative continuously from the boot time on. There is no other feasible way to do it (and even that is insufficient in the long term - that is why DRM is a lost cause).

The typical response of trolls. Assert something is true, and never stop and think they could possibly be wrong.

There are limits to the depth of nonsense which I am willing to even dignify with a reply.

I see you've never heard of WMI then..

Vista and XP

[canuck57]

My friend just bought a copy of XP Pro because he has so much problems with Vista.

No surprise here, M$ has found a way to make the manufactures pay and fatten up the profits. Bet Microsoft does not want to publish downgrade and after market sales replacing Vista. But making lots of money in the process.

Re:Vista and XP

[Anonymous Coward]

Ive already written it 2 or 3 times here on slashdot: Microsoft already offers free dowgrades from Vista ultimate or Business to XP pro, they just don't give you a CD for it, you have to install from some a legitimate CD you already have (or borrow, if you ask me). They will even give you a new registration key if you call. I never had to try that because I use pre-activated OEM install CDs for all my downgrade needs.

Re:Vista and XP

[porkThreeWays]

I recently bought a laptop with Vista on it from newegg. I knew I was going to have to try and get an XP disc from the OEM, but I didn't realize how easy it would be. I just called and asked and they are sending it for free. I guess there must be considerable demand if it was that easy. Two of my friends bought computers when Vista first came out and tried to get XP on them from the OEM. It was basically impossible and just ended up putting pirated copies of XP when the computers came. Funny how there's such a change of attitude from the OEM's when they start losing customers because they are selling something very few want.

Re:Vista and XP

[petermgreen]

which edition of vista was it?

IIRC vista buisness and ultimate OEM have always come with downgrade rights BUT until recently MS would not allow the OEM to supply the media/key for the downgrade. They have now relented on this for the big brand OEMS (that is those who use bios locked versions rather than versions that are activated in the same was as retail).

Re:Vista and XP

[Almahtar]

A friend of mine almost did the same as well. He owns two restaurants, and has PC-based terminals in the more recently made one. He wanted to get the same system installed in his first restaurant, so he called up the company that makes the software and they told him to buy 3 PCs and they'd come get everything set up. He buys 3 PCs which come with Vista, and they tell him that 'for security reasons' he has to purchase XP Pro licenses (at $170-$220 a pop, depending where you get them) for the systems before they'll install the software.

He didn't know any better - good thing he had me to call.

Flamewar anybody?

[Z00L00K]

It may be time for PC manufacturers to also be able to listen to the consumers and actually ask them which OS they want (if any). This so that when a consumer buys a PC with expected performance he/she isn't forced to select a specific OS or version of OS.

It may be that when buying a PC it only comes bundled with XP Home, but the consumer needs XP Pro, in which case it's necessary to purchase the OS TWICE. Or if the consumer wants Linux it's not possible to get rid of the M$ Tax...

Re:Flamewar anybody?

[ais523]

Actually, it is possible to get rid of the 'Windows Tax'; if you don't accept the licence agreement on Windows and then uninstall it, it's possible to get a refund (see this BBC News story). Presumably this applies whether you want to install Linux, an older version of Windows, or even another OS.

Re:Flamewar anybody?

[dvice_null]

That is not always true. Sometimes the seller has legal right to break the whole deal if customer doesn't accept one part of the deal.

But even if I wouldn't have a computer, I would really pay Windows tax, literally. I pay taxes and the goverment buys Windows licenses with that money.

Re:Flamewar anybody?

[aliquis]

They also buy salt and asphalt for roads, plants for parks, machinery for hospitals, and so on, the horrors!!

Re:Flamewar anybody?

[k8to]

Those things are generally considered to be for the public good.

Re:Flamewar anybody?

[aliquis]

And running the same OS, know that whatever applications you use works and so on isn't? I doubt the price of the OS affect the budgets that much anyway.

Thought a free os would probably do for writing documents and such, and with wine maybe even more work but then it may not work perfect and get slower, so they could just aswell not upgrade their computers as often.

Re:Flamewar anybody?

[k8to]

Your position is something other than what I stated.

Money spent on public works is considered to be in the public good. Money spent to acquire licenses for a operational necessity from a private corporation or other entity is not in the public good. It is necessary or unnecessary operational spending. If unnecessary it is waste. Perhaps it is necessary! Perhaps it is the most efficient path. I make no claims about that at this time, but it still is not similar to expenditures on parks, hospitals, education, etc.

Re:*barf*

[Anonymous Coward]

ahem...,

what's that clue that you're talking about. The claim is valid. My scanner worked before and now it does not. That's why I need to stick with XP. Vista reduces the functionality of my hardware.

Vista to XP?!

[morari]

I'm still wanting to go past that 120 day "trail period" for XP Pro 64bit Edition...

Re:Vista to XP?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Protip: That doesn't actually expire. MS figured the terrible driver and software situation on 64-bit Windows would convince most people to switch back to 32-bit well before the 64-bit trial expired.

Slashot Reality Distortion Field

[Anonymous Coward]

Dissatisfaction with Windows Vista seems to be swelling...

This seems to be the theme on slashdot so much that you would think it was true, except that out in the real world, I've seen and heard very little about Vista one way or the other. All in all, it seems to be a fairly ho-hum release that people don't care too much about.

But on slashdot, where the editors wage a continual jihad against Microsoft, you'd think people are burning Vista discs in a bonfire. For a supposedly Linux-centric site, they sure focus on Microsoft bad news more than anything else. This MS fud needs to stop. BSOD jokes need to end at some point.

Re:Slashot Reality Distortion Field

[Dunbal]

For a supposedly Linux-centric site, they sure focus on Microsoft bad news more than anything else.

      No, we focus on Apple and Google too :P

Re:Slashot Reality Distortion Field

[cloakable]

Perhaps the BSOD jokes will stop when the BSODs stop happening?

I can count the number of times I've had a kernel panic on Linux, and they were all at boot, and all due to a misconfigured GRUB pointing to the wrong partition as root.

Re:Slashot Reality Distortion Field

[Almahtar]

This seems to be the theme on slashdot so much that you would think it was true, except that out in the real world, I've seen and heard very little about Vista one way or the other. All in all, it seems to be a fairly ho-hum release that people don't care too much about. I work for myself, so many days I just go to a random cafe with free wireless and do my work there. I've had a fairly large number of encounters where someone would hear me on the phone with a client and say "Hey, you sound like you know something about computers - I can't figure out how to get the Internet working on this thing. Worked fine on my last laptop" - sure enough, it's Vista. Usually the issue is something simple (for geeks) like IE7 staying in "offline" mode even though there's a perfectly active connection (I know, IE7 is for XP too, I'm just stating the latest example I encountered), but it's hard for them. While I'm getting them online I routinely hear complaints about speed and usability. I only used to hear people complaining about speed when they'd had XP installed for a few years and it was bogged down with spyware.

Vista really is a different case. I haven't met anyone that's satisfied with it, and I've met a lot of mom'n'pop end users that were pretty vocal in their criticism of it.

Anecdotal? Possibly. I could have a superhuman ability to attract people that have problems with Vista, or perhaps people that use the WiFi in cafes are demographically more prone to disliking Vista than everyone else, but I'm inclined to believe this is an indication of a larger trend.

should have happened long ago

[nerdonamotorcycle]

This is a piece of backlash that should have happened when XP replaced Win2K. Seriously, what did XP add that Win2K didn't have, other than the kiddie-toy "My First Computer" window-dressing and the "phone-home" validation behavior--both of which are non-features as far as I'm concerned?

Re:should have happened long ago

[NetCow]

Actually, it did add a few improvements - a better process scheduler and improved backwards compatibility with application not written for the NT product line come to mind. However, that's about it, and, seen as an immutable, an owner of a Windows 2000 license shouldn't have needed to bother upgrading unless specifically running into a problem that was only fixed in XP. Unfortunately, there's the question of product lifetime, and once Microsoft stopped supporting 2000 people were more or less forced to switch to XP if they wanted support. The same scenario is going to be played out sooner or later for Vista too - but by now more people have wisened up to the game and have at least opened their minds to the existence of alternative operating systems.

Re:should have happened long ago

[m.ducharme]

Because most home users weren't using Win2000 when XP came out, they were using WinME or Win98SE. XP was a significant upgrade from both of them, and well worth the money.

Re:should have happened long ago

[spleen_blender]

Well if you're going to do a ground up redesign, do a ground up redesign. Not some half assed redevelopment of 2000 into XP. At least with Vista they started design at a much more primitive level instead of relying purely on previous work. I do agree with a poster up a little bit about ease of piracy being a reason Vista isn't doing too hot, but I think of the glass as half full. At least now people will be more likely to try free alternatives to Windows and Windows based software.

Re:should have happened long ago

[RonnyJ]

Unfortunately there wasn't a cheaper 'home' version of Windows 2000, and so Windows XP was a good upgrade path, being a huge improvement over Windows 9x.

As you say though, Windows XP offered little to people already using Windows 2000 (and still doesn't offer much extra now, besides the extra support time).

Re:should have happened long ago

[Saint Stephen]

No, there were some pretty significant kernel-level changes in Whistler. Just read the MSDN library for features that require a specific SDK version to see what XP had that 2000 didn't.

Re:should have happened long ago

[aliquis]

People have already said a few things, much improved networking is another. (Same as win2k3 afaik.)

Re:should have happened long ago

[dave420]

Improvements to the GUI, lots of new hardware support, fast user switching, remote assistance, built-in CD burning, ClearType, Remote Desktop, ACPI (with hibernation support, sleep modes), greatly-improved boot times, major kernel improvements. And that's just from a cursory glance at the Wikipedia article.

Re:should have happened long ago

[Movi]

Just a reminder - the X in Xbox came from DirectX.

>So what did XP bring to the plate that 2000 didn't? Just about everything, including the rapid growth of McAfee, Norton, and other similar software giants.

So lacks in System Security spawning companies that specialize in making massive kernel-space addons, and slowing down the rest of the OS to a crawl instead of fixing the security model is a Good Thing[TM]?

Re:should have happened long ago

[Merls the Sneaky]

Actually the X in Xbox comes from direct X Its development name was DirectX box. Can't Give a reference on that but it is on the Pre-order VIP Pack that was released in Australia a few months before the 360 release.

Does the X in XP have any relation to directX ?

Re:should have happened long ago

[bzelbob]

I think you are absolutely right. I have been running Win2000 and for my money it's the best thing MS ever did.
It is stable, simple, and just plain works.

I have considered upgrading to XP, but why would I want to say "OK" to basically some eye-candy, more $$$$ for functionality I already have and having to ask Microsoft for permission to run my OS that I already paid my $$$$ for???

So in my view, yes, maybe WinXP is 5% or 10% better than Win2000, but I have to give up too much to use it. I'm sticking with my Win2000 until Microsoft sees the error of it's ways. Up until Win2000 they spent most of their energy on improving the operating system, after Win2000 they have spent most of their energy trying to squeeze more $$$ out of existing customers.

Wake up MS!

Re:should have happened long ago

[NetCow]

I know there were a lot of changes and improvements, but I think those two are the only ones actually significant for an end user (we're talking within that context here - it's a story about a consumer rights organization, after all).

Re:should have happened long ago

[jma05]

> This is a piece of backlash that should have happened when XP replaced Win2K. Seriously, what did XP add that Win2K didn't have

It's more important a question now since this is a new release after 5 years. XP and Win2K were 18 months apart. For 18 months, XP had enough enhancements.

Re:should have happened long ago

[bishiraver]

This is what frustrates me. A lot of newer game (UT3, a few others I can't remember off the top of my head) don't work on windows 2000, when there's no reason they shouldn't work on windows2000. They require XP.

One program installed fine, but then got an error about a get system time function! Apparently they renamed it in one of the system APIs...

Re:should have happened long ago

[cloakable]

eXPerience, according to what I hear.

Re:should have happened long ago

[j79zlr]

Cleartype. The only reason I prefer XP to 2k is cleartype, I like pretty fonts.

Re:should have happened long ago

[Hatta]

I thought it was the face you made when you used it.

XP

Vista isn't that bad

[Henry V .009]

Vista is a pretty good operating system. The worst things about it are that: 1) it's new. And that's it. (You have my permission to ignore anybody who talks about "the horrible DRM in Vista" as a raving loon.) Vista is nicer operating system than XP in lots of ways. Yes, it's new and breaks things, but that is the price of change for any OS. (Don't whine to me about how Linux never breaks, you haven't been using it as long as I have.)

However, I hope that the uproar against Vista will teach Microsoft something. "Same old" isn't good enough any more. There are too many alternatives now. People are not going to satisfied with minor improvements any more.

I personally wish that Vista had never happened. An OS is just something for controlling your hardware and running more than one program at the same time. Another service pack for XP would have been preferable to Vista. Vista is better than XP, but not nearly enough better.

The worst thing about Vista isn't a problem with Vista -- it's a problem with Microsoft: there are 6 editions. If Microsoft had released a single edition there would be a lot less to gripe about.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[Shados]

Yup. The only issue with Vista is they took too long to get it out of the door. The amount of people I hear complaining about Vista is indeed great, and its NEVER about how bad this or that feature is. Its always about "I can't find Add/Remove programs anymore!!!!", or some such.

XP was sure as hell a MUCH bigger difference from Windows 98/ME of back then (assuming a lot of people didn't jump by NT and 2k), and people did complain, but not quite as much. Now that computers are much more mainstream (I don't know numbers, but I doubt even 50% of Windows users of today even KNOW of anything before the MacOSX and Windows XP era), XP is all they know, so you change that, and they're screwed. People who remember previous upgrades probably remember how they were a lot, lot worse. (Windows XP before SP1 was completly non-viable for me, I stayed with 2k until 2 months before SP2 if I remember well).

What amuse me though is people complaining about the price, when its no different at all than XP's, if you take out the Ultimate Edition (which is the equivalent of Media Center of XP, which was not available retail, only OEM). Home Premium has a lot more features than XP Home had, Business more features than XP pro, and its all the same price XP was 5 years ago (and thus, adjusting to inflation, is a lot cheaper).

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[Dunbal]

Vista is nicer operating system

does not sit well with

Yes, it's new and breaks things

WHAT? Operating systems ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BREAK THINGS no matter how "new" they are. Microsoft has had DECADES of experience writing operating systems, Microsoft has INTIMATE knowledge of computer components and how they work, directly from chip makers and motherboard manufacturers, in fact at times Microsoft even has the clout to DICTATE which direction technology will progress. And yet they still manage to "break things"?

      Give me a break (yes, it's redundant). For all you stick your tongue up Microsoft's corporate backside, you are not getting a free laptop. So please stop being a "gullible consumer" and stop accepting the "fact" that operating systems are supposed to break things when new. That's simply untrue, and Microsoft doesn't deserve to be "cut some slack".

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[klubar]

Actually, I'm pretty pleased with Vista--especially on new hardware. If someone has XP and buys Vista as an upgrade, that's just stupid. Pre-installed on new hardware it should work with all the drivers on the machine. The only thing it might not work with is some old printer or maybe some VPN software. It sounds like the ./ crowd is just being anti-new. What was wrong with DOS and the command line anyway.

On a new machine--for consumer and business--I'd go with vista. The DRM seems to be a non-issue for me. WMP plays my CD's and legally ripped music just fine. I haven't noticed any DRM overhead.

Vote me yes on Vista.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[pherthyl]

The amount of people I hear complaining about Vista is indeed great, and its NEVER about how bad this or that feature is. Its always about "I can't find Add/Remove programs anymore!!!!", or some such.

That's an awful lot you're lumping in with "some such".

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[hyades1]

The worst thing about Vista (ignoring, for the moment, well-documented driver problems, the fact that it spends a significant amount of CPU time working for MSoft and its media buddies instead of you and the fact that I personally don't give a crap about eye candy) is that I'd have to buy a whole new computer to run it.

Fuck that.

And by the way, I moved from Millennium to XP Pro seamlessly. Two printers, a scanner, network card and TV card all worked flawlessly from the moment I installed it.

A buddy of mine who owns a successful computer company went back to the 64-bit version XP Pro after encountering many problems with Vista. He values his clients, and doesn't put it on their machines, either.

If the best you can say about an expensive new OS is that it's "not that bad", I wish you much joy of it. I'll stay with one that works.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

When my 350mhz dell laptop with XP was stolen, I replaced it with a 2ghz dell laptop with Vista pre-installed. I decided to give Vista a chance, wondering how much anti-vista commentary was real and how much was FUD. After only three days I decided it was all real. Vista was crap. File transfer was excruciatingly slower. Pretty much everything was slower. Video quality was worse. Apps and games were twitchy. Countless dialog boxes popped up to tell me things I already knew.

When I say slower, I want you to understand that I mean slower than on my old 350mhz machine

Switching to XP was like getting super powers. The machine is now screaming fast, with beautiful video, and all my apps work fine.

So much for the new hardware argument.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[Shados]

No, actually. "I can't find XYZ because the icon is different" is literally 90% of the complains I've heard face to face (as in, not online). Oh, and I heard "You need 2 gigs of RAM!" ONCE, from someone who used multiple instances of visual studios and sql management, along with douzans of other programs at the same time (don't know how they lived on XP).

Thats really the totality of the complains I heard. Oh, also "MacOSX is prettier!", once. Which is more a fact than anything, can't argue there.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[HappyUserPerson]

if you take out the Ultimate Edition (which is the equivalent of Media Center of XP, which was not available retail, only OEM).

Actually, Home Premium is the equivalent of Windows Media Center and Tablet PC edition combined. Ultimate is Premium + Business (log on to domains, remote desktop, Fax) + Enterprise (encrypt whole drive, Services for Unix).

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the input Bill.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[mhannibal]

I see you are not in development.

Do you really believe that you can do any major changes in software without breaking anything? No matter how intimate knowledge you have of the system or platform?

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[klacke]

I really don't understand why you people care so much about this. I mean who gives a shit about how the latest OS from Microsoft is perceived from Dutch consumers. It's like how much do we care about how the steering wheel of the last Volvo car model is designed. Things have changed, Everybody I know that care about computers now don't run neither Vista nor XP. My mother runs Vista.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[aliquis]

It's harder to OEM a 500 dollar version, and the people who pays 500 dollar probably wouldn't had wanted a basic version...

Also yes it's new, but if drivers suck it's the hardware makers problem, but they can always say that the product doesn't work with Vista, big deal? If the whole computer suck the manufacturer should probably not have shipped with Vista.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[Shados]

Actually, Home Premium is the equivalent of Windows Media Center and Tablet PC edition combined. Ultimate is Premium + Business (log on to domains, remote desktop, Fax) + Enterprise (encrypt whole drive, Services for Unix).

Yeah, I was more going by how they were marketed. Home premium is missing some of the business features, while Media Center was Pro + The media software (so it had everything or almost), which is like how Ultimate is. I agree though that you're more accurate, though that strenghten my points more than anything.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[aedan]

I don't care about the latest Volvo steering wheel. Only the rear wheel drives... and the C70 drop heads... are worth a damn.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Operating systems ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BREAK THINGS no matter how "new" they are.

True, but this isn't the problem. The problem is that improved security, including the new driver model, require updates from ISV's and hardware manufactures. Microsoft's issue is with their partners being unusally complacent on Vista compatibility. This isn't a problem with Vista, but it has a real negative impact on consumers. Microsoft DOES have a responsiblity in this, but it is not their complete responsibility (they have no control over these issues, just influence). Vista, while it has its flaws, is a great OS when you are running on hardware and software designed to work with it. I would rarely, however, recommend that people upgrade to it. Wait until you need a new computer. By then compatibility issues will be minimal.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[cbhacking]

Wow, ignorant much? Vista isn't "breaking" hardware, it's just that some third-party software was so poorly designed, taking advantage of the flaws present in the average XP install (everything from assuming the user was always a full admin to just going ahead and loading kernel modules for any damn thing like DRM or virus scanning) that when MS fixed these issues, a handful of crap software didn't work (or, in the case of programs expecting admin privileges, didn't work without a UAC prompt) anymore.

As for OSes not breaking things just because they're new, what alternate software dimension are you from and can I go there? Old drivers always get replaced in time (although Vista will happily run most XP drivers, the exception being network-related ones since the new network stack has a different NDIS). Software gets updated to use new libraries and kernel features. People make mistakes (there was a release of Ubuntu with no support at all for ATI video cards, as a random semi-recent example), people move on to new and better platforms (contrary to what some people think, even with Classic an OS X user could NOT run all programs for prior versions of MacOS, just as there are DOS programs out there that won't run on NT), and sometimes people don't even know why something changed (a Linux kernel update once changed /dev/random such that the major source of randomness a friend of mine was using was no longer considered, and he started getting really poor performance in one of his programs).

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[mjorkerina]

We complain about the Vista versions like Ultimate because the competition is giving the whole shebang, for only one price. Mac OS X 10.4 is on the Apple Store for 129$, everything included. The Family pack is for 200$ and can upgrade FIVE macs ! Linux distributions have much more useful stuff for any self respecting geek than Vista Home will ever give. Using Vista or XP Home feels like being crippled. Vista Ultimate is way too overpriced. Its price is higher than OSX+iLife+iWork. 287 $ versus 320 $ for Vista ultimate. Who are you joking ?

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[LindaMack]

Maybe I'm thick, but why is this troll or flamebait?

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[Shados]

I completly agree with you. However, I've rarely read people put it that way (even though it is the only logical way of seeing it). Its always "OMG! Vista is so much worse than XP! Its slower and more expensive!!!". And no, it isn't.

As a sidenote, MacOSX would be a heck of a good deal, and worth every freagin cents, if the price of the OS wasn't "hidden" in the hardware. Sure you can upgrade and upgrade and upgrade, but Apple makes money on the hardware, thats why the software can be cheap. The day it is possible (read: easy) and "legal" (read: not against their EULA) to run MacOSX on most pieces of random hardware, is the day MS will have to heavily consider slashing their price to oblivion to be able to compete. MacOSX is for all practical purpose "free" (200$ for 5 computers upgrade is for all practical purpose insignificant to most people who can afford that many Macs, thats why I say free).

Totally agree with Linux, but Vista Home and Linux are in markets that virtually don't compete whatsoever.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[pherthyl]

Well of course, with the qualifier of you having heard it, and online doesn't count, then that cuts out a lot of feedback. Doesn't mean there aren't tons of problems with Vista (I've had it installed since it was released, but it's completely unusable).

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[jimicus]

Sun managed to do it, and they had a hardware change as well between Sparc32 and Sparc64.

Digital managed it with OpenVMS.

IBM seemed to do OK with their AS/400 range - even with a major architecture change thrown in for good measure.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[mjorkerina]

Markets that virtually don't compete ? well, I always paid my windows tax until my last desktop. My last desktop was windows-free. I had enough of the bullshit. Now i'm a linux convert, I even learned how to live with nearly every apps i use being console/text applications because the mouse gave me painful RSI (repetitive strain injury) unlike the keyboard. My firefox has the Hit a Hint extension so I never touch the mouse. Ever. I use shortcuts for everything and the hit a hint extension let me "click" the links without a pointer, just by typing two or three letters. Of course, my text editor is vim, not this damn son of satan named Emacs, its keyboard shortcuts could certainly give me more RSI pains than even heavy mouse using. Windows is expensive for what it is. Yes Apple makes money on the hardware but even taking that into account, I do think the whole shebang makes for a better value than a windows PC. I'm not a mac user and I don't personally own a mac, i prefer linux and the command line but if I had to recommend a computer to a novice i'd tell him to buy a mac and stay away from the windows hell.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[dioscaido]

(A) Windows should be secure.

(B) Windows should be 100% compatible with legacy applications.

Pick one.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[ScrewMaster]

I don't know who you're talking to, but everyone I know that has recently purchased a new machine with Vista pre-installed has had issues. For example, one individual who just bought a new Dell laptop with Vista on it found that after the last round of updates Internet Explorer refuses to run. Period. And that's the least of the complaints I've heard.

But, regardless. This all comes down to people expecting Microsoft (of all companies) to get something right the first time around. Microsoft never has, and never will. It's expected that you have to wait until at least the first Service Pack (or whatever they're called now) before you buy into the latest greatest from Microsoft. Consequently, the big issue here is not that Vista has problems (of course it does) but that Microsoft tried to shove it down our throats by obsolescing Windows XP before Vista had become sufficiently mature to replace it.

I mean, when Windows XP was released yes, it had issues, but at least I could use my Windows 2000 hardware drivers with it, so I didn't need to buy new peripherals. I could use my existing computer system (actually, as I remember I did add some more RAM.)

I figure in about one to two years, Vista will be an operating system worth taking a look at, but I want Microsoft to work out the major bugs first, and I'll wait until the hardware companies update all their drivers. I'm not in a hurry.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[smash]

Whoever rated this "troll" needs their moderator access revoked. Seriously. There's more FUD from the ass-clowns on here than i've seen from microsoft in the past 12 months - seriously.

I've probably installed Linux about as many times as my /. ID, and love it to bits. But that doesn't change what vista is. It's a step in the RIGHT direction from microsoft. Most of the shit people bitch about with XP has been attended to. Sure resource usage is up. Resources are cheap - if you want to keep running your Pentium 2, then don't fucking upgrade to Vista and expect it to work.

AS to an OS being extremely lightweight and being simply for controlling hardware - i used to agree. However, in this day and age, hardware is far, far cheaper than programmer time and effort. An OS needs to support APIs to make programming easier (eg, OpenGL, OpenAL, DirectX, X11, .net, whatever). Do you *need* them to program with? Of course not. But, why spend 90% of your programming effort re-inventing the wheel, when you could use a built in library, take 90% less programming time, 90% less debugging time, and reap the shared memory benefits when running alongside other apps?

This is why operating systems are getting "fatter". Linux is as well - just try and run a modern dist on a 486 with 4mb of ram (my first linux box) and see where you get.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[HappyUserPerson]

I think I agree with your point. Vista, especially Home Premium, has a lot more value than the XP editions, home, professional (for home users), tablet, or MCE for about the same price. Of course, Vista doesn't add much value if it doesn't work well for people or if users find that the new interface is confusing. I think Vista is suffering from the "new Windows" syndrome (lack of drivers and fine-tuning the new features) which has affected almost consumer Microsoft operating systems since DOS 3.0. Also, Vista has had some true marketing blunders (especially concerning how the different editions are marketed and possibly the number of editions).

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[jamar0303]

I have OS X running on my panasonic laptop so I am not paying the hidden part of the cost. Also, I live in China so I was able to buy the patched version just like it was genuine(from an Apple reseller).

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[petermgreen]

The day it is possible (read: easy) and "legal" (read: not against their EULA) to run MacOSX on most pieces of random hardware, is the day MS will have to heavily consider slashing their price to oblivion to be able to compete
Apple only sells upgrades for OS-X not full products (granted they don't directly enforce this but there is no real point in doing so given that it is enforced as a side effect of the hardware lock). If apple ever sold full copies to use on other manufacturers hardware I bet they would cost a lot more than the upgrades they sell now.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[petermgreen]

I'm not in a hurry.
and as a geek you have that luxury, you can make sure you either buy PCs with XP or with an edition of vista that allows downgrading. You almost certainly have access to suitable media for excercising your downgrade rights (though MS has loosened up a bit on this point recently). If you are so inclined you probablly have the skill to avoid most of the pitfalls of running pirate XP.

Ordinary home users don't! they go out to the computer shop and buy a PC. It comes with vista home basic or home premium. There only legit option to get back to XP is to buy it full retail (upgrade copies of vista don't come with downgrade rights so you can't just upgrade to buisness to get downgrade rights). They are stuck between a rock and a hard place, they either have to deal with vista or spend a lot of money (about £150 for XP home plus they have to find someone to set it up for them, a service they may have to pay for) to go bck to XP.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[smash]

Clearly you weren't around for the a.out to elf or libc changes in the linux world, were you.

If you think that the breakage problems in vista are bad, then it's a shame you were using linux back in the mid to late 90s...

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

if you want to keep running your Pentium 2, then don't fucking upgrade to Vista and expect it to work. Thanks for the advice. The point is that consumers have wised up and don't like being "forced" to upgrade. Gutsy runs just fine on my Pentium 2 and I don't see why I should replace it just to swell Microsoft's coffers with no benefit to myself.

This is why operating systems are getting "fatter". Linux is as well - just try and run a modern dist on a 486 with 4mb of ram (my first linux box) and see where you get. I wonder which of Ubuntu or Vista will be the first to run on the FIC Neo1973 http://openmoko.org/

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[Scudsucker]

Except Microsoft picked neither.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[Scudsucker]

Vista isn't "breaking" hardware, it's just that some third-party software was so poorly designed, taking advantage of the flaws present in the average XP install (everything from assuming the user was always a full admin to just going ahead and loading kernel modules for any damn thing like DRM or virus scanning) that when MS fixed these issues, a handful of crap software didn't work (or, in the case of programs expecting admin privileges, didn't work without a UAC prompt) anymore.

Some "third party software?" You mean like some of Microsoft's own applications?

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[Scudsucker]

Its always "OMG! Vista is so much worse than XP! Its slower and more expensive!!!". And no, it isn't.

How do you figure? Slower: check. More expensive: check. And then there's the bloat: Vista needs 8x as much memory as XP and needs fifteen frikkin gigabytes of hard drive space. That is pathetic.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Things break because they are badly written and assume that they have privileges (i.e. running as admin) they shouldn't. If Microsoft made a serious effort with the security of their OS back when they released 2k or XP, then I doubt most of the problems people have with Vista would be cropping up because they would have been solved already.

I'm not an MS fanboy, I haven't used Vista yet, but I don't think they should be criticized for breaking some compatibility to improve security, you can always use a VM with an older OS if you just can't get what you want running on Vista. There are plenty of other valid reasons to bitch about Microsoft. On the other hand, MS has spent an awful lot of time and money developing Vista, and there doesn't seem like there are real benefits over XP to make moving to Vista worthwhile for most people, and I guess that is why so many people are complaining.

Re:Vista isn't that bad

[cbhacking]

In my experience, most things will work even if there are some known compatibility issues. However, I have heard there are some older MS programs that simply don't work on Vista, for reasons I'm not quite sure about. In well over a year of use, I've never come across such a program first-hand however.

MS might just have made it a big mistake

[SmallFurryCreature]

The consumentenbond is very powerfull, IF a company has its product rated as best it WILL use that in all its ads, it is marketing gold. Being labelled as bad is the exact opposite, MS just got itself a whole shitload of bad advertising and not by some computer mag or newspaper but by an organisation most dutch people believe.

To give you an idea off how powerfull consumer organisations are in holland, this is the only country in the world were Sony will freely and without question exchange PSP's with ANY defective sub-pixel. The ONLY country in the world. Not after you threaten a lawsuit, not after hours on the phone, turn it into a store, if they make trouble refer them to a letter Sony send to kassa and get your new PSP (did it twice until it went past even dutch warranty). Some stores (not sony itself) still try to make trouble, go ahead ask for the manager and tell them to call Sony, Sony will chew them out for you, Sony doesn't want more trouble.

In fact if you are in the netherlands you don't have to accept dead subpixels on anything. I exchanged my iPod video after 6 months, an mp3 player is a device that should last longer, and Apple just had to replace mine or face a court case it was going to loose by default.

This is the country MS refused to simply give XP (costs them NOTHING) to legit buyers of Vista?

Seriously, MS really needs to hire a better public relations officer. They might be lucky that this is the weekend and as such the free working week newspapers won't carry the story but this is just asking for a whole lot of bad press.

On a side not, might Vista's uptake lack because it is harder to pirate? The only people I know who use Vista are those who got it with their new computer for "free". I build my own (and run linux anyway for desktop) so for me Vista would cost a shitload of money. Piracy seems out, wich makes me not use it and therefore I get no experience with it, except for when my friends ask me for advice and I can't give it because I don't know Vista. This actually matters to some as I have helped two people reformat and install XP to get rid of Vista.

I wish just once there was a story from MS that doesn't make it sound like it got some kind of horrible fascination with shooting itself in the foot.

Re:MS might just have made it a big mistake

[jkrise]

I don't think it is a big mistake at all. It would've been a big mistake if Microsoft gave away a free upgrade to XP for buyers of Vista. I think we will see a pricing announcement for this XP upgrade shortly.

Re:MS might just have made it a big mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the country MS refused to simply give XP (costs them NOTHING) to legit buyers of Vista? It will cost MS plenty.
Unfortunately, this is not like the embarassment of Windows ME. That was the "end of the road for that particular "consumer" line. They pulled Windows ME and pushed Windows 98SE in its place. Not a big deal when their new business+consumer flagship Windows XP was just around the corner.
Now Windows Vista is their flagship product, and its not doing well.
MS is in a tight spot - if they allow these Vista users to easily/cheaply change to XP, they are almost admitting Vista is a failure. Other people will then either not "upgrade" to Vista or buy new computers with only with XP, which equates to lost Vista sales.
MS is trying to stay the course and promote Vista; it's attempt at damage control is obviously not doing too well.
Having personally seen the bloat of Vista, no amount of words can make it run faster.

BigFig

Re:MS might just have made it a big mistake

[khallow]

Nonsense. It's better to lose the Netherlands as a market than to start a policy, anywhere in the world, of upgrading Vista to XP for free.

Re:MS might just have made it a big mistake

[houghi]

If Sony gets bad press, people will buy something else. If Apple gets bad press, people will buy some other brand.

But seriously, what alternatives do people have instead of Vista for a pre-installed system. Seriously?

I like Linux and I am convinced that it is ready for the desktop right now. However there is no serious choice of pre-installed Linux PCs. And that is what people want: A pre-installed system

So due to their monopoly position, MS does not have to care what anybody tells them, advices them or advices their customers. Everybody already knows that Vista is not good, but why would MS care? Again, people want pre-installed systems. They want to run the software that they already know, preinstalled.

They are not able or do not care to find out what a distro is, what distro they should download, or how to boot that distro after burning it.
People generaly do not care to learn what program replaces their own program, let alone learn how to install things, no matter how much easier it is in the end.

People are lazy and will look at the short term gains. So offer an alternative. Sell pre-installed systems. That way you will learn FAST wether people are seriously interested in an alternative or not.

Re:MS might just have made it a big mistake

[obi]

But seriously, what alternatives do people have instead of Vista for a pre-installed system. Seriously?

Apple maybe? Every week I hear from another client, friend or relative who's switching because of Vista. Not that I think MacOSX or Apple is flawless though, they've got their own set of issues. And in a few isolated cases, switching is impossible because an app isn't available for the Mac platform (I've heard from accountants and architects with AutoCad).

But apart from those, the majority is saying goodbye to Windows and not looking back.

Re:MS might just have made it a big mistake

[TheRaven64]

But seriously, what alternatives do people have instead of Vista for a pre-installed system. Seriously? ,/quote> Macs? They don't have too many that are aimed at the geek market, but they are fine for most consumers. And, of course, geeks know where to get whatever OS they want installed on a machine.

Re:MS might just have made it a big mistake

[jollyreaper]

To give you an idea off how powerfull consumer organisations are in holland, this is the only country in the world were Sony will freely and without question exchange PSP's with ANY defective sub-pixel. The ONLY country in the world. Not after you threaten a lawsuit, not after hours on the phone, turn it into a store, if they make trouble refer them to a letter Sony send to kassa and get your new PSP (did it twice until it went past even dutch warranty). Some stores (not sony itself) still try to make trouble, go ahead ask for the manager and tell them to call Sony, Sony will chew them out for you, Sony doesn't want more trouble.

In fact if you are in the netherlands you don't have to accept dead subpixels on anything. I exchanged my iPod video after 6 months, an mp3 player is a device that should last longer, and Apple just had to replace mine or face a court case it was going to loose by default.

This is the country MS refused to simply give XP (costs them NOTHING) to legit buyers of Vista? Wow. I guess we know where English got the phrase "being in Dutch." Looks like Microsoft is in Dutch with the Dutch.

Re:MS might just have made it a big mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

To give you an idea off how powerfull consumer organisations are in holland... I don't doubt it, but where the hell is Holland?

Re:MS might just have made it a big mistake

[kaizokuace]

On a side not, might Vista's uptake lack because it is harder to pirate?

Not harder to pirate, harder to stand using for more than 5 minutes. Even pirates know when not to pirate.

Re:MS might just have made it a big mistake

[petermgreen]

Macs? They don't have too many that are aimed at the geek market, but they are fine for most consumers. And, of course, geeks know where to get whatever OS they want installed on a machine.
A few facts about macs

1: apple doesn't do low end, the mini which is apples cheapest box is about £400 (uk price inc VAT), PCs can be had for half that.
2: many people have at least one app which ties them into windows
3: many people don't really understand PCs and treat them as magic boxes to which they recite spells (perform rote memorised lists of clicks) change things arround a bit and theese people panic (just look at the reaction to vista and the difference between XP and OS-X is far bigger than that between XP and vista)

apple is having quite some success by playing up the home media niche but in most peoples minds computer still means windows.

Re:MS might just have made it a big mistake

[Almahtar]

On a side note, might Vista's uptake lack because it is harder to pirate? It isn't. I have a few friends that know pretty much nothing about computers (they're casual gamers and that's it... like if the guy at Best Buy tells them something, they believe it). They've managed to pirate Vista without headache. Some liked it, some went back to XP, but none had any trouble pirating it.

Re:MS might just have made it a big mistake

[hicksw]

They may shoot themselves in the foot, but they are standing on your head....

Re:MS might just have made it a big mistake

[jamar0303]

Sounds like I need to buy all my electronic stuff from Holland in the future.

Re:MS might just have made it a big mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

Harder to pirate? Of course not. It's actually easier to pirate Vista than it is XP SP2. I don't use either as my main OS, but occasionally I do boot into one or the other to check odd things.

Just go download them from the Pirate Bay. Vista (all versions) come on ONE DVD. Run one program (crack) after you get it fully installed and start downloading the updates... genuine!

Now with XP, download either a corporate, home, or professional version. With Corporate, make sure you got a corporate serial and you are all set. With home or pro, make sure you got a home or pro serial. Now with home or pro you need an activation crack and a genuine advantage crack.

I installed XP SP2 on this comp... hmm.. months ago. No problems with updates or WGA ever. I installed Vista basically the day I found it on the Pirate Bay... must have been within a week that Vista first came out (back in January). Haven't had any problems with updates on it either.

DRM is a lost cause. Software lives in a land where ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE. So if it's possible to lock down something, it's also possible to remove the lock. So why even try?

Re:MS might just have made it a big mistake

[LuSiDe]

But seriously, what alternatives do people have instead of Vista for a pre-installed system. Seriously?

Depends on the person, the purpose of the machine. You make it seem as if Windows Vista is the creme de la creme running on all our computers in the world, including those computers running Linux, Solaris, TRON, and what not. What do you think people ran before Windows Vista? Usually? Well most folks think that OS is fine, or good enough. No, it isn't perfect. But Vista isn't either and then people opt for XP until Microsoft gets their act together. Face it, they blew it (for now).

As for a direct answer to your question, I'd assume you mean desktops and laptops and I'd say: Windows 2000, Windows XP, MacOSX, Solaris, RedHat Linux, Novell Linux, and many other Linux-based OSes. Especially in corporate environments because they're more fine-grained and for specific tasks. One could adapt the OS to the purpose (as would be done w/any OS). No, you can't run Half-Life 2 on the computer. But, no employee cares cause they don't have to nor shouldn't be allowed to.

Everybody already knows that Vista is not good, but why would MS care? Again, people want pre-installed systems. They want to run the software that they already know, preinstalled.

So the OEM cuts loose their shackles from the terrorizing (heh!) Microsoft OEM agreement, opting for an other OS instead. That could be Windows XP, it could be something else as I outlined above. Later it may be Windows Vista, but not now.

Seriously in which market would a corporation force their distributors a new version, making it illegal to sell the former version? This is ridiculous.

Re:MS might just have made it a big mistake

[Darby]

I don't doubt it, but where the hell is Holland?

It's in Michigan. It's where Taco is from.

One biased title, please!

[Klaidas]

Uhhh, vista *victims*? Ok, I do understand that most readers like to see anti-microsoft FUD, but this is ridiculous. How are you a "victim" if you're unsatisfied with your operating system or any other piece of software or hardware? It's like someone died because of vista.

Re:One biased title, please!

[TBerben]

In a sense you are indeed a victim. Most OEMs do not give you any choice on the OS side of a computer story. It's either Vista, or erhm... Vista. And because you do not have a choice you are a victim, of marketing... A friend of mine bought a computer - Pentium 4, 2GB DDR2 - so not even a slow computer, with Vista Home Basic (basically, XP with a different look). It can't load a darn dvd without freezing and forcing me to cut the power. To illustrate Vista's amazing capabilities... I agree with the Dutch Consumer's Alliance, people who were 'forced' to buy Vista should be granted a free downgrade to XP and OEMs should be allowed to sell XP with computers instead of Vista

Re:One biased title, please!

[Main Gauche]

Come on over and join us in the States for awhile. Didn't you know? Everyone's a victim! That is, except on the days when everyone's a hero.

Re:One biased title, please!

[hxnwix]

Vista would like to smack you in the face and call you names.

Cancel/Allow?

Vista thinks you smell bad and have a tiny brain to boot.

Cancel/Allow?

Vista vistas you so hard that your vista hurts when you walk.

Cancel/Allow?

Vista makes you spend all your money, then claims that you gave it a virus and stops responding to you.

Cancel/Allow?

*bows head in shame* Look, you can't say that there aren't Vista victims, because I am one. Yes, Vista victimized me. The worst part is that it claims it's my fault, because I was "totally asking for it." Don't let it happen to you.

Re:One biased title, please!

[aliquis]

It's vistas fault the whole machine freezes? I doubt that. More likely drivers or hardware.

Re:One biased title, please!

[Klaidas]

I'm not, unless I get a decent computer - I'm an XP user myself. Still, a victim might not be the best words if one wants to stay unbiased.

Re:One biased title, please!

[poopdeville]

While true, there is a more direct way to reach the conclusion that computer buyers are victims. Victims of fraud.

In common law jurisdictions, an implied warranty is a contract law term for certain assurances that are presumed to be made in the sale of products or real property, due to the circumstances of the sale. These assurances are characterized as warranties irrespective of whether the seller has expressly promised them verbally or in writing. They include an implied warranty of merchantiibility...
An implied warranty of merchantability is a warranty implied by law that if a merchant (meaning someone who makes an occupation of selling things) sells something, that merchant is guaranteeing that the goods are reasonably fit for the general purpose for which they are sold.

If Vista has worse performance than XP, and causes a computer to be unable to perform as it had or would have under XP, an argument can be made that the computer in toto is unfit for the general purpose. Depending on the specifics of the case, it could be a good argument, or a bad one.

Parent Comment Brough To You By....

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft PR

Vista issues? HA!

[crowbarsarefornerdyg]

I applaud their efforts to get M$ to let the consumer trade in Vista for XP, especially after my experience with my wife's computer. We bought her a Compaq SR2010, which came with a "free upgrade" (LOL!) to Vista Home somethingoranother. Anyway, when we got it, I went ahead and installed it, because she wanted to try it. She'd already experienced it on my new computer. The damn thing even had the little "Vista Capable" sticker on the front. Cool, it's worth a shot.

I installed Vista, used the HP Driver Disc that came with Vista to upgrade all my drivers, and waited. After everything was done, I checked the system, and two or three devices weren't working. I went to HP's website, and there were no new drivers for them. To make a long story short, we reformatted her computer, and I wiped the drive on mine and we both went back to XP.

Re:Vista issues? HA!

[dave420]

I installed Vista on my PC, and it detected everything first time. Yay for anecdotal evidence! We just cancelled each other out!

Re:Vista issues? HA!

[crowbarsarefornerdyg]

Pfft. Really? When did you get your copy of Vista?

Re:Vista issues? HA!

[doctormetal]

And how is this a vista issue?
HP is at fault here, not microsoft.

This is the same for most of the complaints the consumentenbond gathered.
People were trying to plug in their ancient hardware and it did not work out of the box.
Other people at least tried to use the driver disc or searched for updated drivers.
As most manufacturers stop support for their devices after a few years there weren't any vista drivers available.
Most of that hardware does not even work reliable on XP because the drivers are outdated.

If such hardware does not work on vista it is not microsofts nor the manufacturers fault. It is the fault of the user who is to cheap to replace his / her outdated hardware.

When I installed vista all my hardware worked excpet for my seven year old hp flatbed scanner. I did not assume it would work though.
As it started to malfunction I did not care either. Bought a new one and it works perfectly.

Re:Vista issues? HA!

[dave420]

It happened:

1. with my (legal) copy of one of the release candidates on my old PC
2. another time a few months ago with an Acer notebook
3. and on my current PC, a couple of months ago.

Each time everything was installed perfectly. No hunting around for drivers.

Re:Vista issues? HA!

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of "The damn thing even had the little "Vista Capable" sticker on the front. Cool, it's worth a shot." did you fail to read?

Oh. Right.
All of it.

Vista is part of the failure model...

[argent]

Vista is a pretty good operating system. The worst things about it are that: 1) it's new.

2) It provides little or no functionality that consumers actually want over XP.
3) It's more complex than XP, due to the "secure-path" code in the kernel.
4) It's less reliable than XP, due to the additional copy protection and secure-path code in the kernel.
5) It has higher kernel overhead than XP, due to the secure-path code in the kernel.

The reason that people go on about the "horrible DRM" is not because the DRM itself is the problem. It's because the changes that were made to support that DRM are most of the real kernel level differences between XP and Vista.

In addition, the new user-visible security features (UAC and the sandbox for IE) are bandaids. They have not made any attempt to address the real problems in the network services, Win32 APIs, and user-level applications that provide such a large surface area to attackers.

Microsoft's real problem is that they did too good a job, for the desktop at least, with Windows 2000. The only shortcomings to Windows 2000 are features that should have been shipped in feature packs... most of them were originally developed on 2000... and everything they've done since then have been attempts to artificially create the appearance of "newness". There were no fundamental changes in XP, and the only fundamental changes in Vista are things that provide no real benefit to the consumer (and actually hurt them).

They got a pass with XP because they presented it as the upgrade path from Windows 9x. They could have done that with Windows 2000... my "Wintendo" (my Windows gaming box) runs Windows 2000, and the first program I found that wouldn't run on 2000... that actually required XP... was a couple of months ago. Something like 8 years after release and 5 years after XP came out. I don't know why they bothered with Windows Me and didn't just push EVERYONE to Windows 2000 as the upgrade path, but I guess they wanted the income from another upgrade cycle. Anyway, XP gave people something new. Vista can't do that.

With Windows 2000 Microsoft has put themselves out of the "operating system company" job. They've reacted by trying to force people to upgrade, and people don't like that. Unbundling Windows and selling the bundled components as separate packages would get them out of this trap, but after fighting so hard to keep that from happening against their will I don't figure they'll do it.

In the meantime everyone who depends on a stable Windows ecosystem is the loser.

Re:Vista is part of the failure model...

[ciggieposeur]

such a large surface area to attackers

As a physical engineer, I wonder: how does one compute this "surface area to attackers"? What is the ratio between the Solaris surface area and the XP surface area?

Re:Vista is part of the failure model...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a physical engineer I can tell you - it's just an expression. In real terms, what the expression means is that windoze has endless nooks and crannies in an almost fractally layered huge set of legacy APIs. If you can't get the intuitive appeal of calling this concept "attack surface area", then you should probably stay the hell away from software development, because the whole shebang is basically analogies like that.

Re:Vista is part of the failure model...

[dricci]

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Vista is part of the failure model...

[smash]

Stuff i use/will use in vista that is new...

• per app volume control
• system restore: it's now been upgraded to snapshot anything you want - so i can for example go back to a version of a file from 3 days ago. this is a BIG feature that i'm shocked there is not more noise about - it will be a big win for those corporate users who delete/overwrite shit on their laptop while working away and expect to be able to get it back
• more than 4gigs of RAM. yes, XP64 can do it, but it's a stillborn product
• directX10. yes, this could probably be ported to XP or 2k. but it hasn't been. suck it up :D

Now, as to the kernel issues.... i have noticed no perceptible difference in performance between XP and vista apart from disk i/o. I haven't benchmarked, but i haven't felt the need to. The amount of time spent "in the kernel" when running apps would be pretty small anyway i would wager. Plus, since i've been running vista, hardware as moved on anyway - I've got an extra 2 cores to run with. It still plays all my MP3s, and i can rip my own CDs with no DRM...

Re:Vista is part of the failure model...

[argent]

Now, as to the kernel issues.... i have noticed no perceptible difference in performance between XP and vista apart from disk i/o. [...] I've got an extra 2 cores to run with. [...]

Ah, you have a faster computer with more cores, therefore Vista isn't slower than XP. Except in disk I/O, where you haven't got an automatic performance boost from the improved hardware.

In many situations the slowest component of the system is between the keyboard and the chair. For many purposes a PIII running Windows 2000 or NT is fast enough that there is no perceived delay in the system. That doesn't mean that if a new OS made your system that slow YOU wouldn't notice, but it does mean that your anecdotal evidence is more or less irrelevant.

There are people who definitely have noticed.

system restore: it's now been upgraded to snapshot anything you want

That's neither an OS capability nor is it something that Microsoft needs to be involved in. There's plenty of applications that provide the same functionality on just about every OS out there, many of them free and/or open source.

more than 4gigs of RAM. yes, XP64 can do it, but it's a stillborn product [...] directX10. yes, this could probably be ported to XP or 2k. but it hasn't been. suck it up

I can pretty much guarantee that Microsoft has DX10 working on XP internally, since that's what they had to develop on while they were developing it. In fact, odds are DX10 would work in XP if it didn't deliberately check... I've found that a lot of applications, drivers, and so on that claim to require XP or even 2000 run just fine in earlier systems if you bypass the version check on install.

As for "more than 4G of RAM"... Windows 2000 Server could do that, in 32-bit mode, on hardware that could address more RAM. It could even give applications access to more than 4G of address space through address windows.

For most people, though, this stuff is irrelevant, their typical new computer is likely to come with 1G RAM at most, and not have DX10 support in its on-board integrated video, so... what do they get from Vista?

Per application volume control, for the 3 apps in the whole world that need it and don't have their own volume settings.

And a snapshot application, vintage 1985 quality, that also happens to be useful for viruses to hide from antivirus software in.

In exchange, unless they got a quad core firebreather like you, their new computer may well be slower than their old one.

So is it any wonder they want an escape clause?

Re:Vista is part of the failure model...

[smash]

Sure, DX10, >4gb of ram, etc are things that COULD be backported to work in XP. They haven't been.

If you feel like running win2k server on your desktop, go for it.

Within 18 months you'll see computers shipping with 4gb. Going on past history, Vista will be with us as the major Microsoft OS for between 2-6 years - at which point we'll be using desktops with 8gb of ram. Sorry, XP isn't going to cut it.

Look, i'm not making the argument that internally, vista is less efficient than XP, that technologies that are relevant couldn't be backported to XP or available with third party apps. That's not the point i'm trying to make.

The point is, they're included as standard, within 18 months you'll need several of the features, moving forwards, there's no ongoing support for XP. You can stick your head in the sand and ignore those facts and downgrade to XP, then figure out in 18 months to 2 years that you're fucked, you can switch to OS/X or Linux, or you can run Vista. On modern hardware, the apparent performance to the end user is as near to indentical to XP that it doesn't matter.

Having a cry about Vista being bloated or different to use and downgrading to XP isn't going to help anyone - least of all the users doing it :D

Re:Vista is part of the failure model...

[smash]

Oh yeah, my core2 quad isn't the only machine i've run vista on with no problems. The oldest machine was a Pentium 4 2.4 (non ht) with 1gb of ram.

It ran fine.

That machine was purchased in 2002.

Re:Vista is part of the failure model...

[Scudsucker]

Sure, DX10, >4gb of ram, etc are things that COULD be backported to work in XP. They haven't been.

DX10 will be. It was the same story with DX9: it was released only for XP as another way to try and force people to "upgrade".

>4gb of ram

XP 64? Beuler? Beuler?

Within 18 months you'll see computers shipping with 4gb.

So? My 10 year old Celeron can address 4 gb of ram.

The point is, they're included as standard, within 18 months you'll need several of the features, moving forwards, there's no ongoing support for XP. You can stick your head in the sand and ignore those facts and downgrade to XP, then figure out in 18 months to 2 years that blah blah blah

XP is an upgrade to Vista. Seriously.

Re:Vista is part of the failure model...

[smash]

XP64 is a dead product.

But, fine - stick with XP, and we'll see who's able to run things in 18 months, and who had to shell out for vista anyway :D

Re:Vista is part of the failure model...

[Scudsucker]

Considering it's only been the last few months where I've run into applications that don't run on Windows 2000, I'm not exactly breaking out in a cold sweat here. And since business, government and education are avoiding Vista like the plague, it's going to be a very long time before moving to Vista becomes a necessity to run new applications.

Re:Vista is part of the failure model...

[argent]

Sure, DX10, >4gb of ram, etc are things that COULD be backported to work in XP. They haven't been.

When I need things like DX10 I suppose I'll have to put up with the disadvantages of Vista to get them.

Within 18 months you'll see computers shipping with 4gb.

But right now, they're not. Right now, someone who's bought a computer that comes with Vista installed, who doesn't need DX10, is getting no real advantage from Vista. We're not talking about what people are going to be buying in 2009, we're talking about computers people are buying in 2007.

within 18 months you'll need several of the features

I think you meant to say that in 18 months YOU will need several of those features. You've got a quad-core box now, so you're considerably ahead of the mainstream. The mainstream doesn't need 4GB now, and probably won't need 4GB in 2009.

Based on my experience with XP and 2000, I don't expect to miss having Vista before 2010, and I don't expect to need it until 2012.

Microsoft's "Windows 7" may be out by then. Why should someone put up with Vista for 4-5 years when they can skip a whole release cycle?

Re:Vista is part of the failure model...

[Trogre]

2) It provides little or no functionality that consumers actually want over XP.

DX10 may be a killer there, unless it's backported to XP. Crysis is due out soon and there's a lot of effects in it that just won't work with DX9.

This pretty much guarantees an imminent mass migration of gamers which will push up demand for Vista applications. This may or may be large enough to lead to other sectors taking the plunge.

Re:Vista is part of the failure model...

[smash]

Business apps, i agree, somewhat.

Just wait until .net 3.0 or 4.0 is not available for your platform, and more apps start being written for it though.

Or games using directX 10.

Re:Vista is part of the failure model...

[Scudsucker]

Developers go where the customers are, not were Microsoft wants them to go. Given a choice between 80-90% of the market or using .NET 4.0, which do you think they are going to choose?

Re:Vista is part of the failure model...

[argent]

This pretty much guarantees an imminent mass migration of gamers which will push up demand for Vista applications

How do you figure it'll push up demand for Vista applications? It's not like ordinary Windows applications won't run perfectly well on Vista, so why do you think there would be a selective demand for applications that depend on Vista over ones that run on any version of Windows?

If you mean that this will increase the demand for games that support DX10, well, yes, but why would a developer who isn't using DX-anything (that is, most applications) or is only using 2D and basic 3D (pretty much everything, including most games) lock themselves out of most of the market?

Even if hardcore gamers were 50% of the market, the other 50% wouldn't need to care.

Re:Vista is part of the failure model...

[Trogre]

Yes I should probably have explained that one better.

There are a lot of Windows applications that still do not run properly in Vista. This is one reason (of many) that people are hesitant to adopt it. Now let's say a bunch of gamers (let's say 20% of market by association) suddenly adopt Vista because of a killer feature (DirectX10). These gamers of course use their computers for other things too, and, I believe, will put pressure on third-party software vendors to make their software Vista compatible.

Of course none of this would be a problem if the OpenGL and SDL groups would put in a bit more effort and make DirectX irrelevant.

Re:Vista is part of the failure model...

[argent]

OK, but making 3rd party software Vista-compatible doesn't mean you'll need to upgrade to Vista to use it, so upgrading from Vista to XP now isn't going to lock you out of this stuff.

As for OpenGL vs DirectX, I'm hoping the raytracing acceleration going into the next generation of video cards (according to email I got from Philipp Slusallek at Saarland University) means we'll get OpenRT and can leave traditional rasterizing behind. If a university can get 7 million rays per second (25 FPS in a quake3 benchmark) out of a 66 MHZ FPGA with 6 million gates, what do you think ATI or nVidia could do with a 400 MHz GPU with over 600 million (680M transistors in the nVidia 8800, no figures on how many gates per transistor)?

so we have your permission then eh ?

[unity100]

On "(You have my permission to ignore anybody who talks about "the horrible DRM in Vista" as a raving loon.)".

good golly ! thank you for giving that permission, as the regulatory board of "talking about ups and downs of software committee".

but you gotta maybe give a heads up to the informations branch of your committee, since apparently they have been rather lax in informing you that the "horrible DRM in Vista" has been proved to suck up shitload of computer resources, numerous times to boot.

i dont know whomever modded you insightful but s/he shouldnt get ahold of those points again.

Go ahead and mod me a troll

[dotancohen]

Go ahead and mod me as a troll. The unhappy Vista users should give a serious look at Ubuntu. I've been using it for over a year on a Dell laptop, and I've installed it (and previously Fedora) for about 10 or 15 friends. With the exception of specific Windows apps (such as Solidworks), Ubuntu apps do everything that Windows XP (the usual old OS) applications do. Email, web browsing, office apps (OOo 2.3 is remarkable), and more. I could go on but I'm (seriously) not a zealot and I'll get a bad enough trolling mod as it is already.

Re:Go ahead and mod me a troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Gutsy or what?

Re:Go ahead and mod me a troll

[dotancohen]

Gutsy's not out yet. I'm installing Feisty now, before that it was Fedora Core 5 and 6. Actually, my home machine just got SUSE 10.3 installed, and I really like the professional appearance. It's also KDE-based, which I always install instead of Gnome. I need to be more familiar with YAST, though, before I go installing it on other people's machines.

I've also looked at Freespire, which I thought would help with the mp3, dvd, and other stuff that usually gets installed. I really didn't like Freesprire, though, they went _too_far_ to be just like Windows XP.

Re:Go ahead and mod me a troll

[RightSaidFred99]

If I had mod points I'd totally mod you down. There should be a special mod down category for "claiming he will be modded down for speaking well of UNIX/Linux/FOSS or speaking badly of Microsoft."

Re:Go ahead and mod me a troll

[stewbacca]

Well maybe slashdot fools will mark you as a troll but you didn't do any trolling in your post. Well stated.

They aren't kidding

[Heliode]

The Consumentenbond is taken very seriously here. Today I found an ad folder in the mail from the Mediamarkt (big computer/electronics store here in Holland) with a large ad in it advertising new computers with XP. "We have them again!". I can't find anything about it on their website. I scanned the ad, and I would upload it if I had some place that could handle the load. I'm open for suggestions!

Re:They aren't kidding

[Heliode]

Hate to reply to my own post, but the scanned ad can be found here

As an anecdote; recently, the person with the least technical skill and knowledge I know (and that says quite a lot), told me she bought a new computer with XP on it because she heard Vista "has to many flaws". I'm pretty sure that if even she knows, everyone in the country knows. I'm pretty sure we didn't have this when XP came out.

Re:They aren't kidding

[springbox]

amazing! That computer must be from the future! It has 2048 GB of RAM!

Re:They aren't kidding

[G-Licious!]

2048 GB DDRII werkgeheugen

? ? ?

:o :o :o

BUY BUY BUY

Vista's Nighmarish File Move/Replace Operations

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Vista and have since its release. The only thing that I really hate about it is how slow it is at moving/copying/replacing files. Whether you're moving files from a flash drive to your hard disk, or from your hard disk to a folder on the LAN, or from one external drive to another, it's dog slow. I routinely have to upload about 40MB of files to a network folder several times throughout the day. This takes approximately 30 minutes from either of my two Vista machines, and approximately 2 minutes from my XP laptop. So no surprise, whenever I have to move files around, I fire up XP.

This is apparently a very well-known problem that everyone using Vista experiences, Microsoft knows about it, and yet it's something Microsoft has been unwilling or unable to fix in the last year that Vista has been on sale. That's just disgusting and inexcusable to me.

There's speculation that the reason file operations are so slow is because Vista has to check each file for DRM before it will copy it to a different drive or network location. I don't know if that's the true reason, but if it is, this should be reason enough for anyone to steer clear of Vista.

Re:*barf*

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that your scanner doesn't work isn't Microsoft's fault - It's the company that made the scanner. Let's be honest, Vista was a long time coming and Microsoft spent a lot of time and money bringing developers up to speed on what they would need to do to create compatable software and hardware on the part of the hardware vendor. The fact your scanner doesnt't work is a simple case of economics or short sightedness. The scanner company likely didn't want to spend the resources or money to make that scanner compatable.

If Microsoft had sprung Vista's development requirements at the last minute, then you can blame them - but as it stands, your gripe isn't with Microsoft it's with your scanner company.

Windows 2000 is the WORLDS MOST SECURE OS...

[JackMeyhoff]

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q276304/

Re:Windows 2000 is the WORLDS MOST SECURE OS...

[kwabbles]

Man, I can barely remember my last 5,000 passwords - let alone my last 30,000.

I thought this was news for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, having read the comments on this article, I would have thought I was reading a Microsoft forum. Isn't this slashdot? Where are all the M$ haters?

Well, I'm personally not an MS hater per se, and am very happy with working in C# and Visual Studio over using Java and Eclipse. However, when I tried Windows Vista, it lasted all of one month on my computer before I went back to XP. I did really like some of the interface improvements. The Aero interface does look nice, and I liked the screen preview feature of the taskbar. But that was about all I liked.

Why did I switch back to XP?

1. Half of my games wouldn't run in Vista.
2. I quickly got sick of having to click "OK" on 3 different security validation popups every time I'd want to run a program.
3. I got sick of having to acknowledge that I'd turned off security every time I booted up (see number 2).
4. I got tired of having to install half of everyting I bought twice, because it would fail the first time due to the Vista "protect the user from himself" theology. Even though my logon acct was Administrator, it wouldn't install apps as administrator mode until it failed the first time. What the?
5. Of the half of the games that did run, graphics performance was about 15% worse than on Vista. Even when I upgraded to a dual-core and was running two ATI cards in Crossfire mode.

I'm not able to give you a lot of technical "this process was x because they did y in Vista" but the above were my experiences with what was bad about Vista versus XP. Personally, I consider Vista to be on par (as far as MS OS's go) with Windows 98 First Edition. I liked 2000 because it stopped me from getting he "buffer underrun" error every time I'd burn a CD. I liked XP because it gave me a lot more "home" and gaming functionality. Vista is a downgrade from both.

Re:I thought this was news for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm currently running Windows Vista on a new Dell m1330 I purchased a month and a half ago, and I can say that the default config of Vista is sluggish and thoroughly annoying. However, with a little tweaking that can be solved. You just have to dig around a lot to find the places to tweak. In direct response to your complaints:

1) I have not hit this problem yet. Perhaps if I dig deep enough back in to my games archive, I'll hit stuff that won't run. Probably the same stuff that wouldn't run in XP till I downloaded a separate add on from Microsoft to tweak XP's compatibility layer.

2) Control Panel (I switch it to Classic Mode) > User Accounts > Turn User Account Control On or Off. The rest I'm sure you can figure out. You will have to at least log out and back in. May need to reboot, can't remember.

3) Control Panel > Security Center > on the left side you'll see an option for "Change the way Security Center alerts me". Click that and turn warnings off to your heart's content.

4) Haven't hit this issue yet with any piece of software, commercial or open source. Probably because of turning UAC off and flipping every warning off. Try the tweaks I recommended and see if you still get this.

5) Have not benchmarked this yet, but I'm willing to put *money* on this being a driver issue. Vista, much like Linux, has a structure for drivers that IHVs just aren't as familiar with yet. Funny how both Vista and Linux both have about the same performance gap behind XP though if your 15% is accurate. (yes, I've tested Linux against XP in a few games like Quake III and such)

I'm running Vista. I've hit driver issues. Plenty of driver issues. But with all those annoyances turned off, Aero turned off, even themes turned off (Yes, my Vista desktop looks like Win2K basically), it's just a Win2K desktop with some architectural changes underneath and an immature set of drivers. I'm using it now simply to know it well for when I eventually have to deal with it on the desktop in the workplace.

I won't install it on any of my other machines (one Windows XP x64, the other 3 ubuntu linux), but the OS itself with a little tweaking and taming is just another MS OS. Now if I could turn off the DRM Overlord subsystem that sucks up a tiny bit of CPU/RAM monitoring to make sure windows is "Genuine", it would be all gravy... I'll probably just format and throw Ubuntu on here eventually. It is telling that the only real, legitimate, "I don't want to use it in the long run" reason I have to not like it is just the fundamental personal offense at being treated like a thief (and having *my* resources used to enforce it) for using a legal product.

Yes, that's certainly a legitimate reason to not like it, and it will never go away. I rarely hear it mentioned outside of /. though. Most of the other issues people complain about (which your list mostly covers) can be solved in 10 minutes or less.

Re:I thought this was news for nerds?

[justamember]

I quickly got sick of having to click "OK" on 3 different security validation popups every time I'd want to run a program. Not being a Vista user, I am puzzled at how MS seemed to have got the UAC feature so wrong, given the length of time they spent developing it. Quite seriously, and no fanboiism intended, the security model of signing in as root in Linux to make system wide changes works with a minimum of disruption. Clearly, MS had the opportunity to introduce a similar thing. After all, there are similarities with the Mac GUI and Vista which would indicate that MS learned from the competition. Why then, have they apparently got UAC so wrong?

Re:I thought this was news for nerds?

[cliffski]

I've still yet to find a single game I own with any vista issues whatsoever. Performance of games also seems fine to me. if you don't like UAC, turn it off, its optional. leaving it turned on, yet complaining bout it seems mad.
Vista is way way better than XP. Its main problem is that so many people have decided not to like it without trying it, mainly due to a lot of anti-DRM FUD thrown around on certain websites.

Re:I thought this was news for nerds?

[smash]

Not being a Vista user, I am puzzled at how MS seemed to have got the UAC feature so wrong, given the length of time they spent developing it.

Big tip: they didn't.

You need to click a UAC prompt to run a couple of things that require admin/system access.

That's all. I can go days or weeks without seeing a single UAC dialog if I choose. If you're setting up a machine and installing drivers or software then sure, you'll get prompted. That's the WHOLE FUCKING POINT - to ensure the system change was instigated by the user, and not some random rogue process. UAC is *NO DIFFERENT* to being prompted for your admin password in any linux distribution by KDE or gnome - except you don't even need to enter your password, if you're an admin user.

The UAC bitching is from 'tards, plain and simple. Tards who will turn it off, and then complain that they ran a trojan and got owned. Suck shit :D

Re:I thought this was news for nerds?

[Das Modell]

UAC prompts you constantly and for almost everything you do. Even if you try to rename a file you created (such as a shortcut), it will prompt you. Twice. UAC makes it impossible to get anything done because you spend half your time clicking away prompts. Reminds me of the good old days of the Internet when you had to manually close popups.

The "bitching" (also known as "criticism") comes from people who don't want Vista to be their neurotic, hypervigilant babysitter. I'm an experienced Windows user and I don't need Vista to protect me from myself.

Re:I thought this was news for nerds?

[Das Modell]

I tried it, and I didn't like it. Vista is a complete failure.

Re:I thought this was news for nerds?

[smash]

I don't know what version of vista you're running, but i rename files as I please and don't get prompted.

Re:I thought this was news for nerds?

[ConceptJunkie]

I had the same problem. Every time I wanted to rename something on the desktop I had to jump through hoops. Every time I wanted to run some perfectly safe piece of software I had to give Vista special permission to run it. How is it protecting anyone when you have to give permission to run a program you've already run a hundred times. Vista adds nothing for experienced users and takes plenty. I agree with the assessment that it is a complete failure.

Re:I thought this was news for nerds?

[Sigma 7]

I had the same problem. Every time I wanted to rename something on the desktop I had to jump through hoops. Works for me. Perhaps the item on the desktop is in the "All Users" folder? Anything there requires Admin privilages to modify.

Every time I wanted to run some perfectly safe piece of software I had to give Vista special permission to run it. Only apps that require this would be:

• Installers
• Broken legacy applications that have no concept of proper storage locations (e.g. The Desolate Room - in this case, it tried writing a file to c:\)
• Debuggers (e.g. MS Visual Studio)
• System configuration utilities.

Vista also has a virtualization feature that allows some legacy applications to write files to their own directory (when it's really redirected elsewhere.) Those applications will have no idea that there's anything wrong and behave as normal.

If you need admin privilages for what should be simple, you may have a malformed security description table on your hard drive or user profile. You can correct them in Vista Business or Ultimate (perhaps Home Premium), but if you have Vista Basic, you are SOL unless you download a third-party utility to adjust these descriptors.

Re:I thought this was news for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

6. I'm an ass and made up a list of "failings" that I could get angry about.

Seriously, what the hell? Unless you are TOTALLY incompetent (as in, actually worse than Joe Random User), there is NO WAY that the majority of those things could possibly be real problems you have encountered. Half your games won't run, AT ALL? You get multiple security validations for all of the programs you run, or even more than one or two? Your vista, unlike everyone else's vista, won't detect setup programs as needing to run in admin mode? Claiming XP had improved gaming functionality is total bullshit. A large number of games had trouble with the transition to an NT-based system. Some eventually got patched, some never made it.

Are you sure you didn't switch to Linux by accident? No, even switching to Linux wouldn't give you that many problems with games...

Re:I thought this was news for nerds?

[ConceptJunkie]

Only apps that require this would be:

        * Installers
        * Broken legacy applications that have no concept of proper storage locations (e.g. The Desolate Room - in this case, it tried writing a file to c:\)
        * Debuggers (e.g. MS Visual Studio)
        * System configuration utilities.

That seems reasonable. Which of these would WinSCP qualify as? None that I could possibly imagine.

The fact of the matter is, why should I need to go through all this work only to get what I had perfectly well in XP. Based on my experience, Vista is bigger, slower (in many cases much slower!), a complete hassle to use and there is absolutely nothing about it I prefer over XP. I like XP, despite its problems, although I use Ubuntu on all my machines. However, I still use XP at work, and there are a couple of Windows apps that I find indispensible that won't run on Wine, so I keep a Windows 2000 virtual machine around at home for those. Windows 2000 and XP were decent products that I used for years, and I was a Windows developer for over 15 years, so I'm not a Microsoft hater. But after I bought a laptop with Vista on it, and even worse, bought a low-end laptop for my wife that was significantly more powerful than the one it replaced, but with Vista it was unusably slow (even with an extra gig of memory). She hated it... it was the slowest-operating computer I think I've ever used. I put Ubuntu on there and it's as snappy as my much more powerful lappy for typical operations.

Re:I thought this was news for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

you need to understand, ms didn't steal this idea directly from a real os unlike those fucktards at linux who never had an original idea.
 
stop giving linux credit for anything that they ripped off from unix. it just shows that you're a n00b and a wannabe and a fanboi.

Re:I thought this was news for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this was news for nerds you would 1) have no problem getting rid of the annoying okay button. 2) Not be lying about what games run in vista i would love a listing of what games you have that wont run as of now. Sorry if your trying to play dos games in vista and they arn't working but as of right now almost every game is working just fine. 3) I never see what you see in your number 3 once again learn your OS before crying. 4) ONCE AGAIN TURN OF THE ACCOUNT CONTROL IDIOT. 5) Every game I've run has run just as good as it did on xp if not 10% - 20% better.

Just wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

The meeting was initiated by the union after it did a five weeks investigation, where it received some 5,000 consumer complaints about Windows Vista. Most of the complaints revolved around application and peripheral hardware compatibility issues.

I don't even want to imagine Linux being in that position. How many complaints "application and peripheral hardware compatibility issues" would there be? Surely, many many many many more than with Vista.

Re:Just wonder

[howlingmadhowie]

i find this telling. you are comparing an operating system patched together by a couple of nerds in their mothers' basements to run on hardware the largest and best funded monopoly in the world has spent untold millions and billions making it impossible for any other operating system to use with a product developed over the course of 6 years by 60 thousand workers at this monopoly.

what i find telling is that you can compare them. maybe computing actually isn't that hard. maybe a few good people can write good quality software. maybe we would have a hell of a lot more choice and more understanding of what our computers actually do if there wasn't one company there deliberately spending millions muddying the waters and trying to make computing look more like alchemy, phrenology or astrology.

Vista is teh noob killer

[j-stroy]

A new Toshiba A200 laptop a friend bought came with Vista. The excessive amount of system alerts which pop-up confused the hell out of him, leading him to click on the adware / spyware browser pop-up ads which also looked like systems alerts, so he installed 5 competing blackmailing "buy me now or you computer is toast" apps for his "protection". These stalled his machine FLAT.

He was ready to axemurder his new computer, and still is cheesed about his first big computer purchase leaving him with such a bad after taste. Luckily I could somewhat untangle the extensive damage.. although we almost did a full wipe and restore, but decided to save that for when we put XP onto it instead (provided we drivers are available!!)

That was before he started asking "what is all this crap on the desktop" re: the widgets, etc. I can't imagine anyone as a beginner getting through the installs, setups, intertangled "welcome" dialog boxes and learning curve without being fully baffled and damaging their system to boot. Obviously Vista is designed to sell more hardware, since noobs can brick their O/S so easily, they will just toss the whole computer as a PoS. Expect vendors to step up as Vista based returns increase!

Oh yeah, this doesn't even mention the amount of buy me and trialware and "marketplace" shortcuts on the desktop.. I'd LOL but I'm gagging.

Microsoft Vista: teh noobs kill YOU!

Re:Vista is teh noob killer

[aliquis]

Maybe he should had bought a mac?

Re:Vista is teh noob killer

[CastrTroy]

The system alerts annoy me to no end. Moving a shortcut in the start menu, to another folder in the start menu shows 3 dialogs so that you can OK it. Seriously? It's terrible. I should be able to re-organize my start menu without going through a million dialogs.

Re:Vista is teh noob killer

[DAldredge]

I just moved 3 short cuts to my start menu and didn't get a warning at all. And yes I do have UAC turned on.

Re:Vista is teh noob killer

[Shemmie]

GP's right - I just drag and dropped a shortcut from one Start Menu folder to another. I got:

1. "You'll need to provide administrator permission to move this file" Continue / Skip / Cancel
2. "Windows needs your permission to continue / If you started this action continue" Continue / Cancel
3. and then the Copying file dialog.

Count em, 3 dialogs.
I have to admit, I don't mind Vista, it's not that bad, and is responsive enough on my 2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo / 1 gig / Geforce 7800 AGP, with a 2 gig Flash disk used for Readyboost. I can multitask between Photoshop CS3, Dreamweaver CS3 and VS 2005 well enough, Office 2007 runs smoothly, and most of the latest games (Portal, HL2 Ep 2, TF2) are running just fine, with most settings on high. Even some older games that have had problems on XP, such as Worms Armageddon, can run on Vista with patches and "Use XP SP2 Compatability".

Re:Vista is teh noob killer

[Eivind]

Yeah. And where you to -delete- that entry, rather than move it, you'd have a fourth dialogue: "Are you sure you want to move this file to the trashcan?"

Four dialogues for deleting an entry from the start-menu is just -sligthly- annoying, no ?

Besides -- it HURTS security: people get so used to the annoying dialogues that they automatically click yes, frequently without even reading them.

Re:Vista is teh noob killer

[drsmithy]

Count em, 3 dialogs.

This will depend on which folder you're dragging to. The Start Menu displayed is combined from the user's personal Start Menu and the "All Users" Start Menu. Obviously if you target an "All Users" folder you will need to elevate privileges, since your normal account doesn't have write permissions to it.

This is *no different* to any of the other platforms. If you try to write to a location you don't have write permissions to, you will be prompted to elevate privileges.

Re:Vista is teh noob killer

[yabos]

That's bloody ridiculous.

Re:Vista is teh noob killer

[Anonymous Coward]

That was before he started asking "what is all this crap on the desktop" re: the widgets, etc.

It looks like a poor version of a teenagers overly tweaked Enlightenment desktop from 10 years ago before he realizes that he actually has to get work done on the computer without all that annoying crap getting in the way.

Mod Parent Up

[TechForensics]

Hits the nail right on the head.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[HiThere]

Any proof of this? MS has a long history of pre-loading dirvers, and even large sections of programs "for faster response". As such, I have no difficulty believing that they'd do it again, and a bit of difficulty believing that "but *this* time they didn't do it".

Still, I'll admit I've no evidence. Merely an established pattern of behavior.

bleat bleat (flame bait - sorry)

[Anonymous Coward]

This happens every time MS release an OS that changes something. When the "Joe" public went from 9x/me to XP they bleated stuff didn't work. Some guy actually asked me how to downgrade from XP to ME (and that says something about it).

MS write the OS and the MANUFACTURER of the hardware writes the drivers to interact with the OS - it's not MS's fault if HP or any other manufacturer can't be bothered to write drivers - because let's face it, they've known about Vista for long enough, MS have taken a while to get it out and there was a fully public beta trial. None of the mainstream hardware manufacturers have any excuse not to release compatible hardware drivers (unless they choose not to which is just tough luck to anyone with old hardware).

Incidentally, Vista shipped with way more drivers than any previous release of windows.

Right about now you're probably thinking ooh my new doesn't work and it should - well no, actually that's up to the MANUFACTURER of your device you've just purchased to develop and supply that, and if they don't well that's just hard luck really.

There are very few things in this world that are the same but are not. A PC can have so many different bits of hardware in and attached to it that nothing else really compares to it. So it can't be expected that everything works, and that anything that worked before still works - because it's never that straight forward.

And finally, Vista for our machines has been pretty good in picking up hardware and peripherals.

And finally, finally - it took sometime for Vista to be driver friendly and accepted by the "Joe" public, so I reckon by this time next year everything will be right with the world again - provided Google don't break anything with Vista SP1 (yes I said Google XD !!)

Re:bleat bleat (flame bait - sorry)

[10101001 10101001]

This happens every time Linus release a kernel that changes something. When the "Joe" public went from kernel 2.6.22 to 2.6.23 they bleated stuff didn't work. Some guy actually asked me how to downgrade from 2.6.23 to 2.6.22 (and that says something about it).

Linus writes the kernel and the MANUFACTURER of the hardware writes the drivers to interact with the kernel - it's not Linus' fault if HP or any other manufacturer can't be bothered to write drivers - because let's face it, they've known about Linux 2.6.23 for long enough, Linus has taken a while to get it out and there was a fully public beta trial. None of the mainstream hardware manufacturers have any excuse not to release compatible hardware drivers (unless they choose not to which is just tough luck to anyone with old hardware).

Incidentally, Linux 2.6.23 shipped with way more drivers than any previous release of Linux.

Right about now you're probably thinking ooh my new doesn't work and it should - well no, actually that's up to the MANUFACTURER of your device you've just purchased to develop and supply that, and if they don't well that's just hard luck really.

There are very few things in this world that are the same but are not. A PC can have so many different bits of hardware in and attached to it that nothing else really compares to it. So it can't be expected that everything works, and that anything that worked before still works - because it's never that straight forward.

And finally, Linux 2.6.23 for our machines has been pretty good in picking up hardware and peripherals.

And finally, finally - it took sometime for Linux 2.6.23 to be driver friendly and accepted by the "Joe" public, so I reckon by this time next year everything will be right with the world again - provided Sun don't break anything with Linux 2.6.24 (yes I said Sun XD !!)

PS - Yeah, I know it's lame. And no need to flame for the ME/2.6.22 conversion. It's just funny how when Vista doesn't have drivers, there's a real feeling that manufacturers are at fault. But Linux? Fuck it. :(

Logical question:

[r_jensen11]

Okay, let's assume that Vista doesn't get that much better when SP1 ships out. Can we reasonably expect to see a larger market share of Apples? How about demand for and supply of Linux installed computers?

Re:Logical question:

[Foofoobar]

2 out of 5 laptops sold last year were Apples. Apple realizes that the 'static' desktop market is not the future; the portable market is the future. This is why they are focusing on portable music players, portable computers and portable phones.

People are portable and they expect their devices to be as well and though Windows can work on portable devices, as usual, they are late to the game and this time I doubt Apple will make the same mistake they made the first time by letting Microsoft step all over them. But then again, they also need Microsoft otherwise they will becoem just as evil (*cough* iPhone *cough*).

Re:Logical question:

[mjwx]

2 out of 5 laptops sold last year were Apples

In the United States only, in the rest of the world they were still only 1 in every 20 (probably less seeing as the the US uptake made most of apple .4% market share increase).

Please repeat after me, the United States is not the world.

Canonical should step in

[FudRucker]

and offer them free copies of *ubuntu, i am sure that will make microsoft happy...

Re:Hmm

[DeadChobi]

More like they bought Vista expecting it to work on their $900 rig of two or three years ago, and expecting to have their peripherals actually be compatible.

"breaks things" is unacceptable.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Especially when Microsoft won't even admit what they broke.

Go back and read about the network bullshit -- about how playing any sound at all will throttle your network activity to one tenth of what it's supposed to be.

And about how Microsoft still hasn't admitted it's a problem.

Or has that finally been fixed? If so, it's hardly the only problem -- I could point you to one of Microsoft's own products that we kind of depend on which hasn't been ported to Vista, and is the reason I must run XP at work.

better USB support and power savings..

[Werrismys]

..and faster boot time to logon screen. The USB still sucks and the power savings are not optimal, but they usually work to at least some degree.

Re:better USB support and power savings..

[Almahtar]

..and faster boot time to logon screen. Yeah, but you still can't do anything for 30 seconds after you get there. How is that helpful?

I thought they already did this?

[SanityInAnarchy]

They won't give you a free copy of XP, but they will let you trade your Vista license for an XP license?

Or am I thinking of something else?

Re:I thought they already did this?

[Repossessed]

I think that only applies to the business enterprise and ultimate editions of Vista. The first two are'nt being sold, at al, to home customers bundled with PCs right now. At least not that I've seen. And in all cases, it would be cheaper to simply get a home basic computer and buy XP separately (unless you specifically need XP Pro).

Re:I thought they already did this?

[petermgreen]

And in all cases, it would be cheaper to simply get a home basic computer and buy XP separately (unless you specifically need XP Pro).
Buisness and ultimate OEM copies (there is no such thing as an OEM copy of enterprise, you can only get that edition as part of a volume license) include downgrade rights to XP pro. Buisness is about £50 extra at purchase time, ultimate is £100 extra (at least that is what dells UK small buinsess site quotes), XP home retail (yes I know some will abuse whitebox OEM packs but lets assume things are being done by the book) is about £150.

unfortunately upgrade editions of vista don't come with downgrade rights so yif buy an upgrade to vista buisness for a machine that was bought with vista home basic or home premium you still can't downgrade to XP.

Stop stalling

[jlarocco]

Will you Windows people stop whining? In the next few years you're going to use Vista, because that's Microsoft's new thing. People whined about XP, and look where we are now. So get on with it. Stop whining and take the plunge. We all know how it's going to turn out, and the rest of us are tired of your bitching.

Alternatively, try switching to a different operating system. For years the most common reasons for not switching to Linux or Mac have been that those operating systems don't support necessary hardware or software and are significantly different than people are used to. Now that Microsoft's own "new thing" is significantly different and doesn't support much hardware or software, it's the perfect time to put your money where your mouth is. Switch to something else, or shut up and take it.

Re:Stop stalling

[aliquis]

+ Infinity.

Same shit with IE 7, IE vs firefox, WMP whatever vs WMP whatever-1, MSN Current vs MSN Current-1, ICQ, winamp, iTunes, XP vs 2k, ..

Vista may suck, Vista may not, my computer have never ran Vista, and if it had done and it sucked I would just have fetched yet another XP disc and reinstall, big deal ;)
Anyway most people complaining probably just stick to the old version because they THINK it's better ;D

I'll install Leopard asap ;D

Re:Stop stalling

[boredhacker]

We all know how it's going to turn out, and the rest of us are tired of your bitching. Yes, we all do know how it's going to turn out... the Windows people will be asking the open-source Unix people how to really upgrade ;-)

--
Questions, comments, criticisms... are always welcome when you're among white hat hackers

Re:Stop stalling

[Paradigm_Complex]

I completely disagree. It's quite feasible to complain about Vista and wait until the Win7. I've known plenty of people who didn't like ME and kept their copy of 98se... and they got their better OS. The only reason XP was such a strong choice (in the Win-only world) is that it took Vista so damn long to come out. The only reason Vista could be "inevitable" is if they take so long again. Otherwise most people could very well wait another two or three years for Win7. I skipped ME and 2k, staying with 98se until XP was already out past sp1. It's perfectly reasonable.

Re:Stop stalling

[Anonymous Coward]

If everything a user needs runs nicely on XP and they have no major issues with the OS, then why the fuck should they 'upgrade' to a new OS?
Oh we should all 'upgrade' because M$ decided we should? fuck that. I'm sure there will be many users (and probably some businesses) installing pirate copies of XP long after M$ ceased selling it because the users know the ins/outs of the OS and all the programs they need run just fine on it and the cost of buying Vista plus extra ram and/or a new processor or even a whole new computer is too much - especially if your company runs tens/hundreds of XP machines.

Re:Stop stalling

[jlarocco]

If everything a user needs runs nicely on XP and they have no major issues with the OS, then why the fuck should they 'upgrade' to a new OS? Oh we should all 'upgrade' because M$ decided we should? fuck that. I'm sure there will be many users (and probably some businesses) installing pirate copies of XP long after M$ ceased selling it because the users know the ins/outs of the OS and all the programs they need run just fine on it and the cost of buying Vista plus extra ram and/or a new processor or even a whole new computer is too much - especially if your company runs tens/hundreds of XP machines.

More or less, yes. It doesn't matter if everyone uses pirated XP after MS stops selling it, because you'll still be paying for Vista when you buy a new PC. Microsoft loves that, because it allows them to continue raking in $$$, claim Vista sales are at an all-time high and at the same time claim piracy is rampant so they can justify even more draconian "anti-piracy" measures in Vista++.

Besides that, your plan simply won't work in the long run. It only works right now because you can get drivers and software. In a couple years, you won't be able to get XP drivers and you'll run to whatever OS has them. And guess what that's going to be? The driver manufacturers will see outstanding Vista sales (see paragraph above), so they'll make Vista drivers.

And the idea of legit companies using pirated Windows is hilarious. Visit the "real world" much? One disgruntled employee, and Microsoft would fucking own you. Literally. That's one risk most businesses don't like taking.

So holdout all you want, but you're just fooling yourself. You'll give in soon enough.

Re:Stop stalling

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternatively, try switching to a different operating system.

Unfortunately this is not an alternative for most people working, you are simply handed a machine and will have to use it whether you like it or not. I was lucky in that my company realized how bad Vista was (9 min unzipping a file with the builtin utility vs. 39 seconds with 7-zip?! I have more examples but I'm sure most will have mentioned most of them already.) and now everone has kept or returned to XP.

Re:Stop stalling

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the problem *is* that everyone knows how it is going to turn out, like you said. And so there is no real rush to get things fixed *now*. So while you are urging the consumers to dive in and see what happens (which I have), the vendors are standing by with clipboards patiently counting the complaints. They are not fixing things, because they don't really have to.

Vista is the prettiest windows O/S to come out. But having become accustomed to Linux, w2k and XP working reliably, it is a huge shock to not be able to go a day without a massive failure of some sort in Vista. (It once claimed that I had no hard drive? It could not find the device on which it was installed....)

If nobody complains, the critical bugs will not get put on the top of the stack.

Re:Stop stalling

[Anonymous Coward]

I get paid hourly. I love that my employer uses Windows. I'd be more efficient on an *nix system, and I like telling them that. But I also know that I make more money when stuff takes longer in Windows, so I don't lose any sleep over it when they ignore me.

Re:Stop stalling

[chrisbzd]

Amen! I tried Vista. I hated Vista. I switched to Ubuntu. I don't ever plan to go back. Listen to this person!

Re:Stop stalling

[radioweather]

I build systems that display weather graphics for a living. We've done systems on Win2K and XP and made them work in the most demanding environment possible, live TV, where things simply can't crash.

Recently, I had to give a presentation to about 50 scientists at UCAR in Boulder. It was the most important presentation I was ever to give, so I left nothing to chance. That included leaving my Windows Vista based laptop at home, because I needed a backup in case their presentation system was also Vista based or Mac based. The Scala presentation software I use is the same I used for live TV weather, and blows Powerpoint out of the water, but like many programs, it won't run under Vista. So I took my older XP based laptop with me just in case I needed it.

Even though my older laptop has less features, less CPU speed, only one CPU core, 512MB RAM, slower IDE hard disk, it still ran circles around my Vista based laptop with dual core CPU, 2GB RAM, SATA drive, and better graphics. I had forgotten how I had begrudgingly slowed my own perceptions to match that of Vista.

For example, here are couple of benchmarks:

Creating new blank email in Outlook Express- Vista:20-30 seconds XP: less than 1 second
Fully booting up from power off- Vista 4-5 minutes XP: 1-1:30 minutes
Running Microsoft Office 2007- Vista won't do spell check XP: with office 2003 ll works fine
Microsoft Frontpage 2003 crashes under Vista - Microsoft aware but offers no fix. Works on XP fine
Running programs- Vista: maybe, not likely if program more than 1 year old XP for certain
Background Processes - Vista: hundreds XP: dozens

and the list goes on and on...bear in mind the XP machine used to get those numbers above is older, slower, with less memory, and slower hard drive.

Recently, after quietly tolerating Vista's slowness and incompatibility, I learned that Microsoft had pushed back the first Vista service pack release until the first quarter of 2008. Originally I'd heard of releases before Christmas, so that millions of people wouldn't be disappointed in Vista's lackluster performance. Learning that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

So, I purchased a new SATA laptop drive for my new Vista laptop. I pulled out the old Vista drive after backing up a few files, and installed the new one. I installed a fresh copy of XP and then proceeded to try locating drivers. Not so easy, because Microsoft pushes hardware vendors to push Vista. For example, XP drivers for the nVidia Go 6150 graphics chip are mysteriously missing from key places. Fortunately tech blogs tracks and archive these things so with a little hunting I had all my drivers burned to a CD ready for install.

I have my once Vista enabled laptop now fully upgraded to a stable and functional operating system, Windows XP Professional. The Vista loaded drive will stay on the shelf until Microsoft pulls their head out of the sand and starts making an OS that isn't crippled.

Take my advice: dump Vista, "upgrade" to XP...and do it soon, as Microsoft says (in yet another brilliant marketing move) that Windows XP will no longer be available after January. I predict there will be a last minute rush and hoarding of Win XP because Vista, to put it simply, just plain sucks.

BTW I'm writing this on my XP based laptop, which used to be Vista based.

Re:Stop stalling

[random0xff]

the rest of us are tired of your bitching I've read on some site that a consumer group in a small European country is far from tired of their bitching. But hey, if you want to roll over and give up, go ahead.

Captcha: unneeded

I HATE VISTA

[AmigaMMC]

I just bought a tablet PC and unfortunately I couldn't get it with XP Tablet Edition, instead it came with Vista Home Premium and after one week I already hate it (Actually I hated it after one day). It's random behavior, it's intrusiveness and it's theft of resources are just a few of the things that are driving me crazy.

Re:I HATE VISTA

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu works pretty good with tablets.

I dont know if theres any handwriting software you can get, though..

(I use ubuntu dapper on a m1300)

Microsoft Is Only Half The Problem

[A_Mythago]

Having Microsoft provide copies of Windows XP to customers will only fix half of the problems on many new PCs as several of the newest laptops and desktops have limited support from the manufacturers for Windows XP (read: non-existent in most cases). In many cases I get a customer who "downgraded" their system only to find that several components are unsupported in XP or have proprietary settings that prevent the generic drivers from working. I hold the Toshiba A215-S7447 laptop up as a good example of this. Although the cynical part of me praises the industry for this revenue stream, it shows that just giving the OS would cause more problems and frustrations for customers in the long run as the software and features pre-installed by the manufacturer that the customer has come to expect are missing from a "vanilla" install of XP.

Most of the complaints I get regarding Windows Vista are of the "I cannot find this feature" or "my 5+ year old piece of software will not work". In nearly all cases like this the problem can be fixed by a little advise on the help system and showing the customer how to use compatibility mode. Hardware is the biggest complaint but again it is almost always for 5+ year old equipment (many of which are no longer supported by the manufacturer) and these are incidentally the same type of customers who complain their sub $500 computer does not have a parallel port.

The majority of the customers that come to me and say "Vista sucks!" are the ones who bought a sub $500 desktop or laptop running Windows Vista Basic meeting the absolute lowest requirements. When you add shared video memory overhead to an already low installed RAM it is no wonder the system bogs down when attempting to do more than one task at a time. Microsoft's biggest mistake was to make this version as in my experience the person who wants to pay the least for a product is the one who tends to be the most vocal about any perceived problems.

One more thing that comes to mind is "who pays"? Microsoft can not be required to pay companies to develop and support their operating system or provide OEM copies of additional value-added software such as DVD decoding or advanced burning capability. The manufacturers of the hardware and especially the large system builders are just as guilty of making the transition as painful as it is.

Vista is not perfect, in fact it reminds me a great deal of Windows XP pre-SP1 and there are a lot of problems that are being ironed out over time. The fact of the matter is unless the hardware manufacturers are willing to incur the additional expense of continuing to develop and support Windows XP drivers, a move to "force" Microsoft to provide "downgrade" disks would be useless to the average customer.

Re:Microsoft Is Only Half The Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

When you add shared video memory overhead to an already low installed RAM it is no wonder the system bogs down when attempting to do more than one task at a time.

I have Vista Business on a Core 2 Duo machine with 2 GB of RAM.

Guess what? It sucks an incredible amount of ass, and it's going away as soon as I can scrape up my XP serial number.

Good thing I only use Windows for games.

Re:Microsoft Is Only Half The Problem

[jb68321]

It's not just people who buy $500 laptops.
I was feeling desperate when my 5+ year old Toshiba laptop video card finally died in August, so I went and bought a Sony Vaio VGN-650N (go look it up for price and specs).
Not ONLY was it loaded with bloatware from Sony that drove me insane, but it also made me wait minutes upon minutes for ANYTHING to happen. I uninstalled all the 3rd party programs I didn't need and even turned off Aero, and "Computer" would take freakin forever to open! And yes, I turned off Aero because it's useless, and it still used 1GB of RAM constantly--ie even while I was doing nothing! It annoys me that my battery power and hard drive/processor/RAM usage are going towards Windows just -existing- let alone me actually using it. I know myself that mechanical pieces degrade with usage, and it's just plain common sense that constant usage will make them degrade faster over time.
Anyways...
Even in the laptop's "Speed" mode, or the highest performance setting modes, etc., it would skip during movies, make me wait a while for simple explorer windows to load, and often Explorer (or whatever it was called... Ive switched back to XP by now) would crash completely! (Explorer needs to restart or something of that nature was the error I think.) Winamp + visualizations that I used on my previous computer completely crashed the system and made me boot into safe mode, etc.

Also, upon resuming from Sleep mode, Vista liked to resize my screen so that there was an inch and a half of plan BLACK (ie no picture at all) on both the left and right side. It actually did this about 80% of the times I resumed from Sleep, which is quite interesting I think.

One more thing: connecting to Georgia Tech's Lawn network was a NIGHTMARE. Everything was set as needed... even told it to connect to non-broadcasting networks, etc... I really tried everything, because I KNEW that Sony REFUSED to support XP at all, and I wanted to get my freaking $2500 laptop to work! Every time, connecting to the wireless network took AT LEAST 10-15 minutes. I would sit through a good fraction of the class just waiting to get to my class notes. Between classes, I just gave up on my laptop and went to a computer lab! What a waste! Half the time, if I actually needed to get SOMETHING DONE... ie work... I would use my boyfriend's budget $800 HP laptop that came with XP.

Oh, and of course there were the annoying "are you sure..." "please confirm..." etc dialog boxes that repeatedly annoyed the hell outa me, but that wasn't the worst of it.

Since XP's on here (no thanks to Sony) I can connect to wireless networks in SECONDS, there's no lag on my movies/programs/etc opening, and I havent crashed ANYTHING, as usual. The one issue, of course, is that SONY wont provide XP drivers OR allow for the installation of similar hardware drivers on this computer (suppose I need to find a crack for their "checking your system" sequence during the driver install.) Luckily I've been able to find almost all the drivers I need, but that is only because Intel, etc have them on their respective non-MS, non-Sony websites.

So PLEASE, don't think that everyone has enjoyed Vista who has put good money into decent systems. I would love to get my wasted Vista money back.

Re:Microsoft Is Only Half The Problem

[dotancohen]

My Inspiron Duo Core 2 (2 GHz) with 2GB RAM absolutely flies in Ubuntu, with Beryl and KDE running. What apps do you use? If there's nothing marrying you to Windows, I really suggest that you give it a try.

Go ahead and mod me a troll. Call me a fanboi. The truth is, Vista is a resource hog and I'm not afraid of some negative rep for suggesting alternatives.

Re:Microsoft Is Only Half The Problem

[Shados]

Go ahead and mod me a troll. Call me a fanboi

Dude, you're on Slashdot and you praised Linux. Not gonna happen.

Re:Microsoft Is Only Half The Problem

[A_Mythago]

I would never dream of saying everyone has enjoyed Vista that has invested money in decent systems, I was saying the majority of complaints have been from lower end systems. As for the Sony Vaio laptops I have been VERY disappointed with them in both bloat and system performance. Several of the applications on them seem to take an extraordinary amount of system resources. With base installs of either Vista or XP without the Sony crapware the performance is greatly increased.

As for the two specific problems you mentioned, I cannot say I have seen many Sony laptops exhibiting those particular problems. Working near a university I have the opportunity to work on a lot of laptops and I think I have seen the wireless problem twice (turned out to be a software conflict from a 3rd-party application both times). The video resize error I have not had the (mis)fortune to encounter and I am certain if this was a common problem I would have had a more than a few customers asking to have it fixed.

Vista as it stands now is not for everyone. My personal opinion is that just like XP it will take a couple of years for baseline systems to "catch up" with the real resource requirements and not a minimum requirements that is for successfully starting the OS that most vendors are looking at.

Disclaimer: I do use Vista, but I also have Ubuntu on my laptop, a Mac serving media files to my network and a FreeBSD system acting as a network gateway/firewall.

Re:Microsoft Is Only Half The Problem

[howlingmadhowie]

Vista is not perfect, in fact it reminds me a great deal of Windows XP pre-SP1 and there are a lot of problems that are being ironed out over time. The fact of the matter is unless the hardware manufacturers are willing to incur the additional expense of continuing to develop and support Windows XP drivers, a move to "force" Microsoft to provide "downgrade" disks would be useless to the average customer.

i take you to task on the above quote from your posting. one would expect the hardware manufacturers to develop drivers for the most used operating system(s). it is unlikely that vista will overtake xp in the next 5 years. such an extreme limitation on the manufacturers' userbase would be folly. or will microsoft find a way of ordering the manufacturers to write drivers for vista only?

Straight out of Redmond - Conspiracy Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

These "I had a wonderful Vista Experience Posts" sound
very much like they are coming straight from Redmond's
PR people. They sound way too much like the official
press releases and media events.

Re:Straight out of Redmond - Conspiracy Theory

[dave420]

Nice try :) I'm wrote it because that's the truth. I do not, have not, or ever will, work for Microsoft. I'm no Microsoft fanboy. I don't own a Zune but an iPod. Every single server I host customers' web sites on runs Linux of some description. If it's similar to what Redmond says would happen to users, then I guess they knew what they were talking about, at least for this user.

Re:Straight out of Redmond - Conspiracy Theory

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

These "I had a wonderful Vista Experience Posts" sound
very much like they are coming straight from Redmond's
PR people. They sound way too much like the official
press releases and media events. They have to because of jerks like you. Anybody who wants to say something against that goes popular (and often ill-informed) opinion has to walk on eggshells or face negative moderations and a slew of heated "you must be on their payroll" rebuttals. If you don't like people sounding PR'ish when they post, then don't use moderations to enforce your opinions and don't hit 'reply' to accuse people of having Feringi-esque motives.

Re:Straight out of Redmond - Conspiracy Theory

[Nebu]

I like Vista a lot, and I don't work for Microsoft, nor am I close friends nor family with anyone who works at Microsoft. I have no idea how I can prove this to you, except to say that if you're willing to come meet me in person in Quebec, Canada, send me an e-mail. I'll let you spend a day with me at work so you can see that I don't work at Microsoft.

Re:Straight out of Redmond - Conspiracy Theory

[nwoolls]

So the above AC gets modded 4 Insightful because he accuses anyone who has had a positive experience with Vista of working for MS. Then two people who have responded, basically rebutting his accusation, get modded Troll. Boy I love Slashdot. You guys are so unbiased.

Re:Straight out of Redmond - Conspiracy Theory

[xtracto]

Well, they are not different than all the posts I get in slashdot when I say that something specific is broken in my Linux installation, I always get lots of replies telling me how Ubuntu works wonders for them (when it does not completely work in my laptop). It is just that for some people it will do what they want and for others it just wont. The same thing happen with OSX, Solaris, Irix and whatnot...

Re:Straight out of Redmond - Conspiracy Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

This is amazing, a guy says he likes MS software, and even after having their bluff called, some Slashbots *still* call him a shill, and get modded up! So the guys 'uh, no, Im not a shill' and he gets modded troll! Fucking unbelievable...and Linux hippys like to call other people sheep...

Re:Straight out of Redmond - Conspiracy Theory

[Phroggy]

I've been a Mac user since System 6 and a Linux user since Slackware 3.5. I'm posting this from my iBook, which is actually proxying through Squid running on a Slackware server and NATing out through a different Slackware server (I really like Slackware, although I've got a a couple other distros installed to play with). I am not a Redmond PR person.

Vista doesn't piss me off the way XP always did. They've fixed a LOT of annoying crap. For example:

1) if you want to install onto a RAID that needs drivers that don't ship with the OS, you can browse the driver CD (with a normal GUI open file dialog) from the installer. With XP, you have to press F6 at the right time, then insert a floppy disk containing the driver in whatever location XP's installer will look for it. If you don't have a floppy drive, you're stuck.

2) if you're copying a thousand files across the network and two thirds of the way through something fails due to a temporary problem, you get a "Try Again" button. On XP, the entire operation simply dies, leaving you with some files copied and some files not.

3) They finally got rid of the annoying "My" in front of everything, and with the notable exception of "Program Files", have optimized most common directory names for CLI usage. C:\Users\Phroggy\AppData\ is a lot less unwieldy to type at a command prompt than C:\Documents and Settings\Phroggy\Application Data\. Many of the new names are exactly the same as Mac OS X uses.

4) When you're entering a WEP key, you only have to type it in once, and since there's a good chance everyone around you already knows the WEP key, you have the option to make it visible so you can check for typos, instead of just displaying bullets. With XP, you get no such option, and you have to type it twice, which is completely retarded (since the consequence of a typo is simply a failure). (Ironically, most wireless routers only make you type it once when setting the WEP key, which is when requiring it to be entered twice for verification would be a good idea.) ...and more. Sure, none of these are really earth-shattering, but when you add them all up, it's like a breath of fresh air compared to XP. Of course, compared to other options, it's still a turd.

Re:Straight out of Redmond - Conspiracy Theory

[DennyK]

I had reservations about Vista myself, but honestly I've had no complaints about it so far. It took me an hour or so to figure out how to disable the annoying shit, eye candy, and resource-hogging unneccesary services, and now it runs fine and pretty much looks and acts much like my old Win2K installation from a UI standpoint.

That said, however, that I got Vista with a new (and significantly better) system, rather than trying to install it on the older box I had Windows 2000 on. I suspect that it is a bigger resource hog than 2K/XP, but on my new system (E6850/2GB/8800GTS) it still runs much faster than 2K on my old system (XP2500+/512MB/GF6100). I can now play DX10 games and use other software that doesn't work on 2K, and I have had no problems with any of my existing software so far. Granted, there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to buy it beyond the whole "new software won't work in 2K/XP in the near future" aspect. Compatibility with new stuff was pretty much the only reason I went with Vista instead of XP.

Re:Straight out of Redmond - Conspiracy Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk some sense, nigga. You sound like my 12 year old cousin trying to argue during her period.

Re:Straight out of Redmond - Conspiracy Theory

[fwarren]

Now I know your a shill. There is no such place as Canada. It is just a place that Microsoft made up for marketing purposes.

Thank god for the Pirate Bay

[flyingfsck]

People who already bought a disfunctional Vista should install Mandriva Linux, but if they are really locked into Windows already, then the Pirate Bay is a good solution for a copy of ExPee.

Microsoft did the right thing

[Metalenkist]

Microsoft did the right thing here I think, It's very easy to blame Microsoft for all the problems here but who should support hardware in first place? Microsoft or the manufacture of who made the hardware? We're 8 months now after the release of Vista many company's had time to build Vista drivers for their hardware. If I had a HP printer who doesn't support Vista, I'll blame HP for being to lazy to support my printer. I fully understand that consumers are disappointed when hardware is not working with the newest Windows version and that they blame Microsoft for it. From a consumers union I expect that they tell consumers the truth and how things work and who to blame when things are not working. The consumentenbond takes the easy way here!

Re:Microsoft did the right thing

[stud9920]

It's not drivers, it's basic software.

* "COM Surrogate has stopped working". WTF is that, why should I be informed (once every 10 secs) about this crash, which doesn't seem like it impacts anything.
* "Internet Explorer doesn't respond". Hell no it doesn't, I fucking shut it down, it should not be responding, and no, a program you shoved up our OS to further your monopoly abuse should not be that buggy.

Don't call my platform buggy, friends with a brand new Dell have the same issue.

Re:Microsoft did the right thing

[Metalenkist]

Don't call my platform buggy, friends with a brand new Dell have the same issue. If this is a typical Dell issue (like you pretend to say) maybe should Dell give support for it. I'll expect from Dell that they fully test their hardware inside out with Vista before giving to consumers. This problem could still be caused by bad drivers, a program delivered with the computer or maybe (a combination of) hardware anyway if a computer from need extra support Dell should give it consumers otherwise not sell it to consumers.

Re:Microsoft did the right thing

[rainer_d]

> If I had a HP printer who doesn't support Vista,
> I'll blame HP for being to lazy to support my printer.

They're not too lazy. They just don't write any new driver for old printers.
They expect you to buy a new printer with your new OS.
Because, if they provided a new driver for an old printer they already sold, they'd have to spend some money (pay a dev-monkey) and yet make zero dollars out of it.
Well, they'd make a couple of bucks out of the ink/toner stuff, but that's a different business-division - and as new printers are delivered with less and less ink/toner nowadays, people with new printers also quickly hurry to the stores and buy a replacement cartridge.
So, IMO, the problem seems to be that consumers buy the wrong kind of printers (I guess it's only a problem with inkjet-printers, as you can print on any LaserJet with a suitable LaserJet driver, at least with CUPS :-))) from the wrong manufacturer.

Also, nobody forced anybody to buy a computer with Vista. Apple sells great Laptops and PCs without Windows. Dell sells cheap Ubuntu-boxes^Hn. SUN sells Solaris-Workstations.

Re:Microsoft did the right thing

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news:

"We love the Mister [Bill] day cancelled in New York." Citizens are revolting!

question: "I don't know why people don't like it."

[j-stroy]

How could you not? There has been a LOT of coverage about what people don't like about it. Following the growth curves, there are LOTS of people who have not been "using Windows for years". The particular reasons people don't like Microsoft can be that their products make sucking noises due to hiring and management practices where inexperienced college grads reproduce decades old Comp Sci problems. The farther we get from the 70's and 80's, the fewer well educated designers there seem to be.

Enjoy watching videos and playing iTunes on your new cube heater. =)

Vista 64-bit is a nice OS. Its not perfect, though

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I like Vista 64-bit. It is a very nice OS in general. It works very well in general, although my biggest problem with it so far is how Vista caches memory. It doesnt work well when rendering large 3d scenes, that use lots of ram. I have 8 GBs of ram and Vista caches 4GBs most of the time. That tends to piss me off.

Otherwise, its a rather nice os, thats been quite pleasant to use. It uses more resources, but in general on my quadcore it flys.

It is better than XP, security wise, it is also nicer to finally have the GPU doing a lot of gui tasks.

Vista 64-bit is a step in the right direction. I do not like the DRM features, and absolutely performance could be improved a bit, but its not bad at all. I think people like to bitch about things they dont use. I have legitimate complaints about Vista, as a user... but in general i enjoy the OS more than XP.

Yes, it needs more drivers... yes... it needs to have the DRM ripped out of it... but give it a try before you hate it.

Re:Hmm

[flyingfsck]

Well, you know, Microsoft did not have to change their device driver model. If they kept that the same, then all drivers developed for Win2000/XP would have worked. MS deliberately created a borked system and is marketing it is the best thing since sliced bread. They deserve all the bad press they are getting. At this point in time Vista is an expensive POS.

Why are they asking for XP....

[webmaster404]

Because XP can be just as bad as Vista, both are dead-end platforms that will need to be "upgraded" with a $100 price tag to keep using some of the same software. If the consumer group wants to place things in the hands of consumers, it would be to ask for Linux. Sure you need to upgrade Linux, but the software is free and can be run on most any hardware platform, the same can't be said for Vista and XP. Not to mention the DRM thats built in, and WGA.... both of those are anti-consumer more then Vista alone and XP has both even though just minor doses.

To all those who "don't understand" the problem:

[erroneus]

With all the people out there 'hating vista' I find it amusing that there are some confused individuals who actually love Vista out there who are asserting their denial that Vista sucks.

I think the reasons people are offering for hating Vista are both valid and inconsequential. I say this because it's not the reason that matters so much as the fact that there's discussion about it at all... what's more, there's actually pockets of consumer action growing out there.

Let's take a short walk through recent history shall we?

Windows 3.1:

It was the first "usable" version of Windows. It did things that were arguably miraculous. They created a unified printing, display and user interface such that all software written for it was simply easier and better. No more hoping there is hardware support for your applications. Does anyone remember hunting for drivers to support a printer under AutoCAD or Word Perfect? Not too many people here are old enough to remember that stuff, but I'm here to tell you that it was a big deal and I was singing Microsoft's praises as a savior for the PC and its users.

Windows 3.11... Windows NT:

Progress and improvements! Things just kept getting better. People were happy and excited to upgrade. Things couldn't be better! ... or could they?

Windows95:

WOW! What an amazing difference! A bar at the bottom of the window with a menu system? Sure it was Mac-like, but it was still a wonderful improvement in terms of style. For those already accustomed to Win 3.1 and all that, we knew it was essentially the same OS but with more 32-bit-ness which, even though we didn't fully appreciate what that meant at the time, we knew it was good somehow. Windows95 wasn't "worse" than any of its predecessors and we were still happy to get it because it just looked cooler.

Windows98:

More 32-bit-ness. Cooler still. More old DOS stuff being hidden from the user... some didn't care for it, others appreciated it. We were all generally accepting of it though.

Windows 2000:

Awesome. We didn't have to understand that there were some serious underlying differences to be experienced there... we could just "feel" the differences somehow. It was still Windows NT and as such required more computing power than Win95/98, but for those who craved the improvements that Win2000 offered, it was worth giving in and upgrading the hardware to get it somehow... and yet many remained with Windows98... some serious departure from the "Happy Microsoft Upgraders" mentality is really starting to show now.

Windows ME:

Do I really need to mention it? I guess there were some 'good ideas' in there, but frankly, I never used it. If I wanted to "upgrade" from Win98, I went to Win2000. Like most people, I just stepped right by WinME.

Windows XP:

It's all about the eye-candy. Windows XP didn't offer anything that Windows 2000 didn't already offer. What's more, there was no "Windows XP server." What was that all about? My first attempt at putting WinXP on a machine revealed a slow machine that was once pretty nice under Win98 or Win2000. And given that XP didn't actually offer anything exclusively better in terms of functionality, I ignored it for a long long time... eventually as old machines died and were replaced with newer, better machines, I didn't mind going to XP so much... so eventually XP won its way in by exhibiting patience. No one clamored for XP... they just accepted it. But neither was there mass rebellion against XP.

Windows Vista:

It was a long time in coming. For some it was a dark cloud. For others it held the promise of fixing a lot of things and delivering a LOT of new, interesting and exciting new toys and technologies. Delivery and development delays kept coming and coming. Eventually features were dropped one by one... the hopefuls began to lose faith... the "dark cloud" folks were actually a little relieved since it meant the possibility of less chaos when it

Mod him down, but he's right

[willfe]

I hate to agree with a so-called "troll" here but he really does have a point -- I lived in his "hell" for a month on this HP/Compaq notebook that came with Vista. When it spontaneously uninstalled its own hard drive controller driver last week, rendering itself unbootable (ironically, the bootloader could bootstrap the kernel, but mysteriously then the kernel instantly forgot how to talk to the disks -- the only repair option available? Blow it all away and reload the factory image), I removed Vista entirely and stuck Ubuntu 7.10 on this thing. I've been happy every since :)

Things run faster, are more stable, and I have more useful tools and software here. OpenGL (3D stuff) works great, I can still run all the apps I use (since they're cross-platform anyway :)), and I get my work done much faster. Strangely, I'm even getting *much* better battery life out of the internal battery on the laptop *and* on the external battery I use to extend the internal battery's life. Bluetooth *never* worked right in Vista, yet I'm tethered to a Windows Mobile 6-based phone wirelessly (via Bluetooth) for its Internet Connection Sharing right now to post this.

I think I'll take this idea offered by the original article here and go bug HP for a refund for Vista (or, if they won't do that, mebbe an "upgrade" to XP ... not that I'd use it :)).

Re:Mod him down, but he's right

[Das Modell]

When it spontaneously uninstalled its own hard drive controller driver last week, rendering itself unbootable, I removed Vista entirely and stuck Ubuntu 7.10 on this thing. I've been happy every since :)

Ah, so I'm not the only one whose Vista has self-destructed for no apparent reason.

Re:Mod him down, but he's right

[adolf]

I'd like to point out that I've had Ubuntu blow itself up more times than I have any other OS.

The system completely shits itself every time there is an update to the kernel (it seemms incapable of managing to run LILO by itself) or to the nVidia binary drivers (which also requires a magic incantation to make X live again).

In fact, other than once instance of OS/2 Warp badly damaging itself as the power failed during a chkdsk operation twelve bloody years ago, I don't think I've ever seen a non-Linux-based operating system completely hose itself, unaided, and become unusable.

This includes Windows of all incarnations after version 3, except for NT.

YMMV.

Re:Mod him down, but he's right

[Cro Magnon]

Well, I didn't have Vista self-detruct, but I did have a couple of hung boots with Vista. I used that as an excuse to try Ubuntu as a dual-boot with Vista, and THAT seemed to kill Vista.

I HATE VISTA

[AmigaMMC]

I just bought a tablet PC and unfortunately I couldn't get it with XP Tablet Edition, instead it came with Vista Home Premium and after one week I already hate it (Actually I hated it after one day). Its random behavior, its intrusiveness and its theft of resources are just a few of the things that are driving me crazy.

Vista on digg and slashdot

[S3D]

I have impression that digg users generally more tolerant of Vista (or even pro-Vista) than slashdotters. I'm wondering if what I've seen just random fluctuation or the reason is that /. and digg have different demographics. The diggers are predominantly Windows users, but that still not explain why they prefer Vista to XP.

Just Downgrade

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a Vista license, I suppose just using XP (it's cheaper anyway) instead is a no-brainer, legal-wise. What do the lawyers say?

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[webmaster404]

Totally agreed. 3.1 was a leap ahead of DOS, 95 and 98 were easier to use then 3.1 and had the taskbar, 2000 was decent, although I never ran it when it was new, just on pre-existing machines, XP was, in my opinion, the best version of Windows, sure it wasn't the best it could be, but it kept the same learning curve as 95,98 and 2000, if you could use 95 you could use XP, It was that, that was keeping Linux from leaping ahead of Windows, now though Vista throws it totally out the windows, if you knew how to use XP, you still have to learn a new OS, so why pay $50 (OEM) to over $200, (Ultimate) when you can get the same level of functionality with Linux thats free, almost always gets better (mostly the code gets optimized, applications run faster, bugs get fixed....) unlike Windows where the next version seems more sluggish then the other version not to mention how easily you can get spyware/viruses just by visiting a website with IE. Most Windows "Everyday" users won't ever mess up Linux enough to even put it in an unusable state, the most that can usually happen is your home directory gets wiped. Thats it. With Windows even a simple hardware upgrade can give you a Blue screen of death (Once on Vista I got one because my Wireless card wasn't pushed in all the way....) on Linux that hasn't ever happened to me. I was happy with Windows until Vista, that just made me jump to Ubuntu even faster,

MS has alienated its customers, the age of MS is passed, like the age of IBM before it, now the age of Linux looms before us, a world where you can actually get the OS that you want

Re:*barf*

[digitig]

Who says that the AC has a gripe? It's simple economics, as you point out. The AC has a choice of using an OS with which existing H/W works or use a different OS that offers no apparent advantage but that forces expensive H/W replacement. AFAICS it's a no-brainer.

A good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

What if some enterprising person got a hold of the list of people with this complaint that were rejected by ms and offered them free CD's of ubuntu AND support for it.

Are you sure???

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... Click on "Help - About" and I am pretty sure it will say that you are running Ubuntu and not any version of Windoze.

My Issue with vista

[munrom]

The biggest issue I have with vista, it's got nothing new for me. DOS -> Win98, yay the computer is more usable, as much as I love dos a GUI is nice Win98 -> 2K, yay I can have different accounts for other users now 2K -> XP, yay some of my older games are happier with this Xp -> Vista ??? Want to sell me something, actually improve on your previous offering.

Re:My Issue with vista

[smash]

Yeah i'm sure you'll get better performance with DX10 games on XP than vista too.

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[Yosho]

Windows XP didn't offer anything that Windows 2000 didn't already offer.

I see this get posted on Slashdot a lot, but it's just not true.

Things Windows XP has that 2000 doesn't include system restore, driver rollback, fast user switching, a built-in firewall, an encrypted file system that supported multiple users at once (2k's only worked for a single user at once), smart card support, data excecution prevention, better compatibility with pre-2k applications, remote assistance, a remote desktop server in the professional version, and more. Not all (or even any) of those features might be useful to you, but they are there, and there are people who use them.

Insert the standard "Just use Linux or Mac OS X?"

[Cannelloni]

Yeah, yeah. I love flame wars. But seriously, why do people even bother with Vista? What's more important: the glossy surface or your apps? What the 'puter looks like or what it does? My buddy Kristofer is a fanatical Windows user who recently bought a big ass HP laptop, a Pavillion dv9000 17" I believe, sort of like the B-52 of laptops, while I'm a happy owner of a Mac OS X 10.4 and MacBook Pro 15.4". Kris is already having problems and glitches with his very expensive and super-heavy laptop, and wants to go back to XP, but OS X or Linux isn't even on the radar screen for him, no matter what happens and no matter how much trouble Windows causes. I have given up trying to show the trouble-free existence on the other side of the operating system fence, because Kris simply does not have the brain cells or the DNA set-up to support Mac OS X or Ubuntu, Debian etc. Please explain to me what's going on, and how did so many people end in this Dark Age of computing, and why do they stay there out of their own free will?

MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

6) Microsoft Windows Vista was released before it was finished, like all Microsoft software, in my opinion. That's a bigger reason why it is less reliable. 7) Vista was released before there were plenty of drivers. 8) Microsoft didn't warn people sufficiently about incompatibilities and insufficiencies.

I gor VIsta raped

[buzzthebattlecat]

I hate to say it, but I fell into the Vista trap. I was having some issues with XP and thought it would be a great time to upgrade. I have been a loyal MS customer since I switched from from an old Tandy box to Win 3.1, big jump. I use my machine as a recording studio, and anything that made it more 'mac' like is bound to be better. That said I went to a large retailer and bought Vista. The first thing I noticed was it wouldn't take my product key. That's fine I thought and finished the install. The second thing I noticed is that it is freaking huge. That in turn made a decent running box pretty slow. Third aggravating point was that it treated me like an idiot. I am no programmer by any means, but I cut my teeth on the first CoCo computers from Tandy in the 80's. I understand a little more than Vista was giving me credit for. Long story short, I never could get the store bought product key to work. MS stated that the copy I bought was for upgrade purposes only, and must be a pirated copy. They stated that I could not do a clean boot with the software I purchased and I owed them another $150. This really vexed me. I am now a happy Linux user. After trying a few OS is settled on Unbuntu. I love it. I have also converted two colleges with my live CD. I keep a spare in my car just for such occasion. FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read the Vista Failure Log.

[Erris]

What is so bad about Vista? I have not used it yet. I've seen it, and I know some people that are using it and they don't complain about it. What's the deal? Is it just that it's new?

Mock surprise! Really, do you live under a rock? People don't complain because they don't know they have easy alternatives that work. They just use what they are given until someone shows them something better. Vista's pains have been documented at length here and you can see them for real if you watch what your Vista using peers have to put up with.

Vista has been out for nearly a year and the consensus opinion is that it sucks in all the usual M$ ways and then some. Lots of the breakage is intentional: M$ wants to own your digital life and is doing it's best to force you onto their media player, their photo managers as well as their crappy productivity software. You don't have to take my word for it because twitter made a nice log of other people's opinions. The M$ PR people really hate it, so you will probably be put on the terrorist no fly list for just looking at it.

Re:Read the Vista Failure Log.

[Macthorpe]

Mock surprise! Really, do you live under a rock? People don't complain because they don't know they have easy alternatives that work. With the lack of any other evidence (save your repeatedly debunked and mostly irrelevant 'list'), Occam's Razor would suggest that people don't complain because there's nothing to complain about.

Vista has been out for nearly a year and the consensus opinion on Slashdot, a Linux-centric news site, is that it sucks in all the usual M$ ways and then some. Fixed that for you, just so you realise that you're not actually taking a representative sample of the populace.

You don't have to take my word for it because twitter made a nice log of other people's opinions. Have you honestly not given up pretending that you're the same person? You've been exposed about 5-6 times now, by various people.

The M$ PR people really hate it, so you will probably be put on the terrorist no fly list for just looking at it Paranoid FUD or rhetoric? It's difficult to tell with you sometimes.

Re:Read the Vista Failure Log.

[dedazo]

You don't have to take my word for it

That's funny, we do, considering you wrote that. Or are you actually denying that 'twitter' and 'Erris' are both sockpuppets of the same person? Do you think people who read Slashdot are really that stupid?

You can insult people all you want by calling them turds, that doesn't change anything. Your other sockpuppet is in karma hell and likely to stay there. It's a safe bet to say that this one is heading there as well. Good riddance. The last thing this community needs is another self-professed "evangelist" who makes people laugh more often than not and makes everyone look bad.

Re:Read the Vista Failure Log.

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon. You know the reason people generally don't complain isn't that they don't have anything to complain about, it's that they don't have any real recourse, because Microsoft has a monopoly. Linux and the Mac OS (another monopoly, anyway) don't count, because their data by the time they upgrade to Vista is locked into proprietary formats (e.g. Office).

Re:Read the Vista Failure Log.

[Macthorpe]

I disagree.

If people don't have a choice of system, then they are more likely to complain because what other option is there? If there is a choice, then people are more likely to, instead of whinging about it, up sticks and change system without bothering to say anything.

No, sorry, your assessment of the situation doesn't scan with me at all.

Re:Read the Vista Failure Log.

[Anonymous Coward]

You deserve your "funny" mod, though I'm pretty sure you weren't going for it.

Go troll some other website.

I would but...

[Anonymous Coward]

or shut up and take it.

No thanks, I ran out of lube....

I have a great solution!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an absolutely superior solution to this situation. It will make everyone happy!

1) Get a copy of Ubuntu 7.10 (ok, not available for another week yet).

2) Install on Vista infected computer.

3) Never have to worry about Microsoft forced incompatibility (with itself), draconian user fees,
or systems 'slowing down'. Also don't have to worry about the infection that is DRM.
4) Microsoft is happy in that they never have to worry about these 'unsatisfied customers' again. Surely they know that their customers are not these dis-satisfied home users, or even business users, but channel partners and resellers. That these crazy home-users no longer need to be supported by microsoft should make them happy, for it will reduce their overhead and improve their bottom line.

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[Shados]

well, some of the features you mentionned werent there at launch (for example the firewall). Though thats more "under the hood" features, and for a lot of users (especially for those LOOKING to trash Windows, or for averahe home users, obviously), it doesn't count. Vista has a completly crazy amount of those (a lot more than XP has over 2k), but when comparing OSs in a list like that, usually (not saying I agree), only the major, obvious changes count.

Make of that what you will.

Should be "Microsoft Gets Its Wish"

[Kainaw]

This is what Microsoft wants. Users are told ask for XP instead of Vista - which doesn't really change the amount of money Microsoft receives in any way. Then, in a few years, Microsoft stops supporting XP and forces everyone to buy Vista. So, in the long run, Microsoft loves the "buy XP instead of Vista" hoopla. They're going to double their profits.

Re:Should be "Microsoft Gets Its Wish"

[smash]

Yup, i really don't get the whole "get XP instead!" shit.

You're going to need to get Vista next year anyway. If not, then pull your finger out and switch to Linux or OS/X - XP is a DEAD END.

Re:Should be "Microsoft Gets Its Wish"

[nywles]

Probably, but in the process awareness has been created for choice in operating systems. I bet most people here in the netherlands never knew what an operating system was because it was just "how the computer works". Now people start to realize there is a difference between a computer and a windows. Perhaps this will make it a little bit easier for Linux advocates to explain what linux actually does.

No Video Card

[EmotionToilet]

And for those of us with laptops with no video cards? Are we not good enough to get a decent OS to run?

Re:question: "I don't know why people don't like i

[dave420]

I've yet to hear anything critical about Vista that wasn't either ill-informed, overblown, or complete guesswork. My own personal experiences of using it clearly do not represent those of the various people complaining about it. Remember we don't hear much from the "it's working fine for me" crowd, as they have no reason to tell anyone.

And as for it being a cube heater, you'd have to try pretty hard to be even more incorrect. The machine I've got is a Dell Vostro 200, one of those slim boxes, and it runs practically silently all the time, and doesn't kick out much more heat than any other PC I've used (even Linux ones *shock*). Compare it with the hulking great G5 sitting next to it, which sounds and feels like a Harrier with engine difficulty, and you'd understand just how quiet and cool this machine is.

Re:Vista 64-bit is a nice OS. Its not perfect, tho

[botik32]

Yes, it needs more drivers... yes... it needs to have the DRM ripped out of it... but give it a try before you hate it.

Let me see... you suggest I plunk my hard-earned dollars to TRY OUT a piece of OS that everyone is saying is crap JUST FOR THE SLIGHT POSSIBILITY that I might like it? Thanks, but I'll pass :)

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[mjorkerina]

Good lord. Most of the things you said are useless, and the useful things are available with third party software.
System restore doesn't help, it's a problem in itself. Driver rollback is a nice feature but even when I had XP I never had to use that, what kind of faulty hardware and drivers do you have to think this is a great feature ? you could always install the old version without that. The built-in firewall didn't appear before a service pack it hardly counts against windows 2000 when XP was shipping and new. Smart card support ? what are you smoking ? 2000 already supported them. Remote assistance is a funny crippled remote desktop system, you can get better third party software for, exactly, FREE, and it's called UltraVNC. Remote desktop in the pro version ? who cares, UltraVNC is better.

Be serious, XP didn't have anything worth mentioning over 2000. It was a funny, stupid blue GUI for the masses and that's all.

vista performance is slow even with eye candy off

[edxwelch]

Vista performance is slower even with aero turned off and this is not an opinion, it has been benchmarked:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page4.html

that's not counting the numerous vista performance bugs, nor the well know usability issues (allow, continue).. which effectively slows down your productivity

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Vista 64-bit is a nice OS. Its not perfect, tho

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Well, please by all means... be ignorant.

It is not a crap os. You dont have to plunk your hard-earned dollars to try out the os. You can install the dam thing for free for 30-days, or feel free to DL a pirated version, or test run one in a store.

Not everyone is saying its crap. Its just you have chosen to side with those that do, which is odd, since you have not even tried the OS.

Its probably the best windows OS yet. The security is better, the fact that finally we have a supported 64-bit windows OS is a godsend. XP64 was great but just not supported by hardware manufacturers.

Whatever you think of Vista, its still easier to use than linux and has more software AND it is better than XP security wise. It's not as lean as XP, but i find it convient that now we speak about XP as being the better windows, when years ago, the same people bitched about XP compared to 2000, and 2000 to NT4..

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically your argument is, "I don't like any of the new features XP had over 2000, therefore there is no difference between 2k and XP"? How insightful. Your ad hominem attacks have won me over.

Ignoring that most of what you said is just denying reality, I don't see how you can honestly say that VNC is better than RDP. Have you ever actually compared the two's feature sets? Have you ever tried using them over a low-bandwidth connection? Seriously, RDP blows VNC away.

You fail at life

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes he does grasp the difference. Observe

even the average consumer doesn't like Vista, not just the geeks. In short you have restated pherthyl's point, and added nothing to the discussion.

learn to read

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[jimicus]

You do realise that most of the "advances" you tout existed on various other systems for years before Windows.

And I'm not talking about some exotic "spend $$$$$ because you're a massive business with a budget to match" - many were available to the average end user. For instance, in the UK Acorn had 32-bit processors (well, 24 bits in some parts of the CPU and 32 bits in others) in 1987, complete with a printer driver system similar to what's in Windows, a bar showing programs and disk drives along the bottom of the screen. About the only big thing it did not have which you would expect on something today was protected memory support.

of course

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Building and bundling "Crappy OS"

2. Let people "disbundle" with the former "less Crappy OS"

3. Do not continue support for the "less Crappy OS"

4. Doubleprofit !!!

mod parent up

[Shadowplay00]

Nice parody of the old "Macs are slow" troll

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[yeremein]

an encrypted file system that supported multiple users at once (2k's only worked for a single user at once)

Huh? Win2K's EFS works for multiple users. Although it wasn't until XP SP1 that EFS was no longer trivially crackable...

Oh, and in your list of enhancements in XP, you forgot ClearType. ;)

Boycott all computers with Vista on them DONT BUY

[Anonymous Coward]

The market is a funny place. It does not listen with its ears. You can complain all day and do it 24/7/365 and will only hear in reply a deafening
silence. You can send letters and get pro-forma 'replies' that appear to say that your post was 'received' but obviously not read, understood, or otherwise acknowledged! The only real way the marketplace really hears is if consumers kick the enslaved hardware industry and its slavemaster overseer microsoft in its ass. You see, businesses only listen with their asses. You have to kick them hard before they listen. The bigger monopolies just have to be kicked harder. Its a lot further down the septic pipe before the shit rolls down to the brain. Great masses of people have to realize that they really do not need to buy the latest craptacular garbage out of Redmond that happens to have forced itself by the foulest of market tactics into all the new computers publicly offered for sale and onto the shelves of your local monopoly outlet like Wal-Mart or Gibsons. Just do not buy them. Tell the store clerks why. Most of these clerks are scared rabbits holding onto bare survival jobs and will usually be mortally afraid of telling their bosses bad news. Not to worry. All your conversations....and your face and chest if you are a woman.. will be part of the stores 'security tapes' and will be reviewed by other personnel. Some may even listen. Let those expensive boxes stack up unsold and have birthdays in the stores and I guarantee it. The usual reaction will be to after a while get rid of the merchandise in some kind of fire sale or what the monopolies call a fire sale....2 percent off. Don't buy then either. This has to be a grass roots action. Like Ho Chi Minh once said. A people's war requires a people's army. To not buy costs you nothing. There is nothing offered by the new machines that older machines or linux machines can do, do better, and certainly do cheaper. YOU make the decision TODAY, to not buy ANYTHING from the monopoly from this day forward. THAT will be the kick in the ass that industry needs to unbundle itself from its slave contracts with microsoft...or go broke!

You brought up a good point

[Anonymous Coward]

However, MS Vista wasn't made in avoid. What I mean to say is that that it's predecessor XP, Server 2003, Win2000, Win98(even ME) gave people what they basically needed targeted at ease of use whether it was Internet, Email, and applications. The best of these products is Server 2003 which is the most secure of them all! The gripe; to stay on track, is the total combination of restructuring of an established product, new features, lack of hardware support for older computers, lack of software support, and the murder of it's predecessor to boost sales without really asking people what they wanted! Don't forget that Vista prevents you from having it on multiple computer in your own home locking it down. These schemes make people very angry considering they should be able to do whatever they want with it after spending hundreds of dollars. This is why OSS will conquer the corporate, home, and educational centers. People are tired of these wacked out business models that force them to depend on a product and it's upgrades without any of their input or consideration to established trends. I hope this helps.

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[Yosho]

Huh? Win2K's EFS works for multiple users.

What I mean by that is that XP can let multiple users access a single encrypted file (or directory), which, as far as I'm aware, you can't do in 2k. (but maybe they added that in in an update I don't know about)

Oh, and in your list of enhancements in XP, you forgot ClearType. ;)

That's true, but mentioning that probably would've just caused somebody to flame me about how they hate "blurry" fonts. ;-)

Look, a M$ Turd! Re:Read the Vista Failure Log.

[Erris]

Talk about the Vista failure and out causes come the fanboys.

With the lack of any other evidence (save your repeatedly debunked and mostly irrelevant 'list'), Occam's Razor would suggest that people don't complain because there's nothing to complain about.

Wow, presented with a tremendous list of complaints from government officials, industry executives, wintel rag editors, and ordinary people, you conclude that no one is complaining. Denial.

How about a little recent, personal experience? I've actually met two people unfortunate enough to have bought a laptop with Vista. My comment about owning your digital word comes from watching one of them try to load up her camera software. Vista did not let it work, but the built in photo manager worked. So much for user choice and the myth that hardware with the little flag "just works". The other user has a tablet PC and the touch screen is worthless. Despite M$'s hype about multitouch surfaces, the table fails because it reads your palm as input while you try to use a stylus. Brilliant interface! Now I understand why M$ tables are also a failure. I have not watched long enough to see just how buggy it is but both are much slower than you would expect from beautiful new hardware. Neither of these people complained because all they want is text editing, light math, email and web browsing. The industry has let them down by saddling them with Vista.

Re:And I just thought I'd point out...

[symbolic]

Steam (the gaming platform) has a stats page where you can compare your setup to those of other gamers...I was surprised, if not amused, to see that 90% are still running XP. I personally won't touch vista. It's a DRM-infested cesspool.

Re:Look, a M$ Turd! Re:Read the Vista Failure Log.

[Macthorpe]

Yawn, more bullcrap. Also, I'm not a fanboy, I just know more about Windows than you, and it pains me to see someone write so much about something they know so little about.

Wow, presented with a tremendous list of complaints from government officials, industry executives, wintel rag editors, and ordinary people, you conclude that no one is complaining. Denial. You're the one who said that nobody was complaining, not me - hence why I quoted you. Keep up.

My comment about owning your digital word comes from watching one of them try to load up her camera software. Vista did not let it work, but the built in photo manager worked. So much for user choice and the myth that hardware with the little flag "just works". That's funny, because photographs aren't subject to any DRM restriction, so you're either lying (again) or you haven't got the faintest idea how to troubleshoot Windows software, which seeing as you haven't used Windows for 7 years or so doesn't surprise me.

Despite M$'s hype about multitouch surfaces, the table fails because it reads your palm as input while you try to use a stylus. Brilliant interface! Multitouch has to be hardware and software supported. Microsoft are hyping multitouch because they've created hardware that can do it, and plainly your tablet isn't capable of it. If you can get multitouch working on that tablet in Linux, then I will send you a blank cheque in your name (Willy Hill, isn't it?).

Neither of these people complained because all they want is text editing, light math, email and web browsing. But I thought everyone was complaining? No matter - so what you're saying is that all these people want is simple things, and they're not complaining, so I imagine that Vista is actually performing those tasks fine. I'm fairly struggling to see your point.

As usual, you pick one point of mine to argue with and then ignore the rest, then absolutely fail to provide compelling evidence to argue the one point that you picked out. Good job.

Re:Vista 64-bit is a nice OS. Its not perfect, tho

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like your 3D software is not 64-bit aware, in which case, even on a 64-bit OS, it won't be able to access more than 4 GB of RAM because the process itself is only 32-bit. Hence, Windows has nothing else to do with the other 4 GB of RAM.

DRM does nothing if you're not using HD-DVDs and BluRay, which I refuse to do because my HDCP-lacking video card and expensive monitor work quite fine, thank you.

ha ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

you just said upgrade to a previous version. Thanks for the chuckle.

Re:ha ha ha

[khallow]

Yea, it's pretty sad. I sure wish I had that option when I was shopping around a few weeks ago for a version of Windows XP.

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, when did different releases of Windows become a man? Did it become sentient all of sudden (which might explain all the BSOD, if properly interpretted)? Maybe you can call it an "ad id attack" (... but then, all arguments are essentially against some sort of thing, so even your argument is an "ad id attack", although your comment is much more "ad hominem"-ish), but it's definitely not an ad hominem attack. There is no hominis involved here to be attacked.

Re:Insert the standard "Just use Linux or Mac OS X

[smash]

Yeah, yeah. I love flame wars. But seriously, why do people even bother with Vista?

Because it runs more of my existing software than Linux or OS/X, doesn't crash (yes, really), looks and feels better than XP, and runs just as well as XP on my hardware?

Look, I love linux as much as the next guy (FreeBSD more so), but until I can run the games I want to play on Linux, it's not a starter as my sole OS. And yes, I'm a Transgaming subscriber, and no it doesn't work with a lot of the games I want.

Re:OS Beer

[dragonbutt]

looks like it's time for this old jem http://web.mit.edu/dzych/www/FunFiles/COMP.OS.Beer Maby it's time to update it.

Re:Vista 64-bit is a nice OS. Its not perfect, tho

[smash]

I have 8 GBs of ram and Vista caches 4GBs most of the time. That tends to piss me off.

What would you rather it do with that RAM, just leave it unused? You do realise it can dynamically allocate RAM for use out of it's cache, right? In the meantime, it's speeding up your disk access...

Re:question: "I don't know why people don't like i

[drsmithy]

How could you not? There has been a LOT of coverage about what people don't like about it.

Indeed there has. Unfortunately most of that "coverage" is either made-up by people who have never actually used Vista, or is blatantly false. To use a few examples:

* "High hardware requirements" -> Vista runs quite usably on my ~6 year old P3 (with modest and cheap upgrades) and on a ~3 year old Precision M60 laptop. Certainly better than OS X runs on equivalently aged Macs.
* "DRM" -> irrelevant and inactive unless you're using DRM-encumbered media, in which case you're limited by the same restrictions that all players have (be they software or appliance).
* "UAC prompts" -> I think I see maybe one of these a week (can't actually remember the last one), and never in an unexpected fashion, or one that doesn't also happen in OS X or Linux.
* "The UI has changed" -> the changes are cosmetic. The fundamental UI features and concepts (widgets, task switching and windows management models, program launching, etc) remain the same as they were in *Windows 95*.

The sheer volume of FUD spewing out of the anti-Microsoft brigade about Vista is staggering - I was expecting it to be bad, but it really has been something else. It makes Microsoft's comments about Linux look like accurate, respectful, constructive criticism.

nice troll

[Anonymous Coward]

gee, I wish I could call people 'turds' and walk away with my karma. very good.

The Media Is Not Free

[excelblue]

Although the consumer's union asked for a copy of Windows XP that they were legally entitled to, their offer was refused for a few reasons.

1.) The license states that while Windows Vista owners are entitled to use Windows XP, they are required to seek their own media.
2.) The media itself costs money - packaging, CDs, manuals, etc. may be cheap, by they are not free
3.) Microsoft DOES sell copies of the media cheaply without license keys.

So, the consumer's union should have either obtained a XP CD from a friend, downloaded it somewhere, or buy the Windows XP install disc without a licensing key. The latter of the list does exist; I've recently been to Fry's and saw an OEM Windows XP install CD w/o license key for sale for only $5. Should they have called up Microsoft and be denied a Windows XP license key should there be a problem. In any case, it would not be illegal for them to copy a friend's CD or download an ISO.

Although I usually don't support Microsoft, it is very important to note the packaging costs. Just like how people distributing GPL'ed code can request a nominal fee for distributing the source code, Microsoft should be allowed to request a nominal fee for sending the Windows XP install medium.

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[dcam]

Things Windows XP has that 2000 doesn't include system restore, driver rollback, fast user switching, a built-in firewall, an encrypted file system that supported multiple users at once (2k's only worked for a single user at once), smart card support, data excecution prevention, better compatibility with pre-2k applications, remote assistance, a remote desktop server in the professional version, and more. Not all (or even any) of those features might be useful to you, but they are there, and there are people who use them.

Of that list there is only one that offers any value to me: remote desktop.

You missed a couple that I do value: ability to lock the task bar (no more accidentally dragging it somewhere, tab completion on the command line and decent wireless tools.

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I fully agree that XP was an improvement over Win2k (not the party line around here for some reason, but it's the truth), you can enable tab completion in Win2k by setting the CompletionChar registry setting to 9 instead of 0x40 (I'm not sure of the exact name as I'm on my Mac right now, but it's under Software\Microsoft\Command Processor). I think the default value means that you can do '@' completion? I'm not too sure, but that would be a righteous pain in the ass if you needed to type an email address on a command line...

MICROSOFT PAID SHILL ALERT

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet even after you've posted all those reasons for Vista being wonderful people are still asking for XP. You are a shill sir, get a real job: working on *nix.

Re:MICROSOFT PAID SHILL ALERT

[JoelKatz]

Do you have any evidence? Or do you think that everyone who disagrees with you must be a shill?

Re:vista performance is slow even with eye candy o

[GPL Apostate]

That Vista performance is slower is just common sense. XP performance is slower than W2K. I recently installed (for gads knows what reason) NT 4.0 on an old '486 Toshiba Laptop with 32M of RAM. It ran pretty decently on that laptop. Until I installed NT4 Service Pack 6, which bogged it waaay down for some reason that I'm sure was well documented a decade or so back.

Microsoft OSes bloat and bloat and always have. They really don't have a good overall design. Just tons and tons and tons of fairly good programming talent capable of tossing all kinds of new stuff into each release.

Downgrade license

[Craig Ringer]

The following PDF describes the specifics of the downgrade license process. It'll only do you any good if you have Vista Business or Vista Ultimate, unfortunately.

<a>< ahref="http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/f/4/5f4c83d3-833e-4f11-8cbd-699b0c164182/royaltyoemreferencesheet.pdf">http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/f/4/5f4c83d3-833e-4f11-8cbd-699b0c164182/royaltyoemreferencesheet.pdf</a></p>

<p>I'm a little surprised MS haven't bent on Vista Home yet.</p>

<p>It's a pity, really. Vista could've been rather good, and does have some nice points. They did such a half-assed job on the security model - breaking things all over the place without really properly fixing it - that it seems like a missed opportunity though. I suspect an explicit "legacy mode" container a-la Mac Classic might've gone down better with customers in the end.</p>

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[JAlexoi]

well, some of the features you mentionned werent there at launch (for example the firewall). Though thats more "under the hood" features, and for a lot of users (especially for those LOOKING to trash Windows, or for averahe home users, obviously), it doesn't count. Vista has a completly crazy amount of those (a lot more than XP has over 2k), but when comparing OSs in a list like that, usually (not saying I agree), only the major, obvious changes count.

Make of that what you will. Totally agree!
The first thing I was told, when I askem my microsoftie friend what was better in Vista then in XP?
He said: "Look how easy it is to setup a network..."
I was WTF? I do it once, twice a year... By magic of DHCP built-in-to my router!

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[petermgreen]

not the party line around here for some reason, but it's the truth
XP=2K+more bloat+a few marginally usefull features+support for some newer types of hardware+activation crap (which could be got arround by using a pirate copy of the corporate edition but MS targeted people who did that with WGA)

so overall better in some ways worse in others.

Re:Insert the standard "Just use Linux or Mac OS X

[petermgreen]

Yeah, yeah. I love flame wars. But seriously, why do people even bother with Vista?
because most people feel tied into windows either because they don't want to learn something new or because they have software that ties them in or both. Apple's range of desktop hardware is also terrible (basically if your requirements are even slightly out of the ordinary then often the only mac that can meet them is the very expensive mac pro) and apple doesn't do low end in either the laptop or desktop markets.

Walk into a store like PC world (for those not in the UK PC world is the main chain of bricks and mortar computer retailers here) and you will find that nearly all the machines come with vista, usually the editions of vista that don't come with downgrade rights. By the time the user finds out that vista is more trouble than it is worth there only legitimate option for downgrading is to buy XP retail and then they have to find someone to set it up for them (which often involves a lot of hunting for drivers). Sure there is the odd mac arround but nothing to make the person who went in shopping for a PC think about getting one instead.

Re:Ok, start the flames (could be good for Linux)

[JoelKatz]

I've been using Vista on a secondary machine for a few months now. It's a very high-end box, quad-core CPU, 3GB of RAM, 8800 GTS video card, and of course Vista runs great on it. What wouldn't?

I've had a few minor issues with Vista, most of which Microsoft has already offered fixes for. I haven't found anything significantly better, but other than the issues that have been fixed, I haven't found anything worse either.

I'm not sure why people would want XP over Vista, unless they need to support old hardware that they already have or are buying computers under about $700 total price.

Of course, there's a vibrant low-end computer market, and the lack of XP availability would probably hurt it quite a bit. Or push people to use Linux. We'll see.

Perhaps the unavailability of XP will push the $1,000 computer market to Windows? Consider also that the cost of the OS is proportionately higher at the lower end. That extra $130 from not buying Windows could mean a quad-core CPU instead of a dual or 2GB instead of 1GB for your Linux box.

It could happen.

More insightful than ya'd think

[Almahtar]

It's just funny how when Vista doesn't have drivers, there's a real feeling that manufacturers are at fault. But Linux? Fuck it. :( I would have said the same thing, but without using the guy's own words with a find+replace to say so. I think your method proved the point far better.

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[drsmithy]

well, some of the features you mentionned werent there at launch (for example the firewall).

Yes, it was.

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[Almahtar]

Most Windows "Everyday" users won't ever mess up Linux enough to even put it in an unusable state, the most that can usually happen is your home directory gets wiped. Thats it. I can vouch for that. I've installed Linux dual booting with Windows for my dad, mom's office PC, and my step-dad and they all use it exclusively. None have managed to break it either. Open Office, Firefox, Amarok, and Thunderbird handle their needs nicely. I expected them to just use Linux as a backup for when they screwed Windows up (so I wouldn't have to rush to fix it as quickly), but they ended up preferring it.

linux

[luther349]

pirating of vista and vista sales are down. wile linux downloads of ubuntu are at a all time high.

Re:vista performance is slow even with eye candy o

[drsmithy]

That Vista performance is slower is just common sense. XP performance is slower than W2K. I recently installed (for gads knows what reason) NT 4.0 on an old '486 Toshiba Laptop with 32M of RAM. It ran pretty decently on that laptop. Until I installed NT4 Service Pack 6, which bogged it waaay down for some reason that I'm sure was well documented a decade or so back.

This means nothing. An older Linux kernel will also run far better on older hardware than newer.

Try modern hardware - a quad-core machine with 4G of RAM and put it under heavy load. 2000 will be (much) better than NT4, XP will be better than Windows 2000 and Vista will be better than XP. *That* is "common sense". If you were developing an OS today, why would you bother optimising for a hardware platform any less powerful than 2 CPU cores and a couple of gigabyte of RAM ?

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[johannesg]

Moreover, after Vista being on the market for a year or so, I still haven't seen a copy of it running _anywhere_. I am an IT professional, yet none of my customers, colleagues, or friends are running it. Noone wants it either - there is no buzz about this great new operating system. At work it hasn't even been mentioned (disclaimer: I do work in what is primarily a Linux shop, so this is maybe not such a surprise). And my main customer asked about it once and I advised to hold off for now (the ability to run separate from the internet, not to mention drivers for a shitload of obsolete equipment, are both critical to them). Turns out they are perfectly happy to not spend any money and not run the risk of upsetting their systems.

Perhaps the Headlind Should Have Been ....

[Black Copter Control]

Dutch Group Declares Vista "Not Ready For The Desktop".

Delicious, isn't it?

Re:Perhaps the Headlind Should Have Been ....

[mjwx]

Dutch Group Declares Vista "Not Ready For The Desktop"

"For The Desktop", kind of redundant don't you think, we should really stop at Vista Not Ready.

I took it missionary style.

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Ballmer, Deacon of the Church of Monkeywalks, bent me over and stuck it to me. Alternatively, he also swiped my credit card in his asscrack. I wonder if he was a menbot, or somthin' like a Stepford Husband in how he done it. At least I can shit a little loose and can now relate to my desktop shock wallpaper (http://goatse.cx).

Zakk, from Timedoctor.org BETA fame, says "hi" and that the 30 seconds of penetrative pain is well-worth the lifetime guarantee of Microsoft products that expire 3 years later.

Compatibility mode

[freedomlinux]

offers to re-run most programs in Compatibility Mode if they didn't work... 5 clicks of the mouse to set compatibility mode to XP
Five clicks to set compatibility mode is five too many. If the program needs to run in compatibility, Vista should be able to make the determination and run any necessary compatibility by itself, without bothering me and without causing me the delay of the five clicks.
If you need to set a compatibility mode by hand, a Meta-key(+letter)+Click would be an acceptable solution to automatically select XP xompatibility mode.

Re:Insert the standard "Just use Linux or Mac OS X

[Cannelloni]

You have a point. Apple should perhaps add a medium range, expandable, modular Mac in between the iMac and the Mac Pro. People have been bitching Apple about that for years now. But I think it is likely Apple have looked into that and determined that there is no place for such a machine. Why is that? Well, there are some clues...

60-70 percent of Apple's computer sales are laptops: Macbook and MacBook Pro machines. I know this because I work for a major reseller. The rest is Mac Pros and iMacs.

There are two main categories of customers: professionals (music makers, video editors, graphics people, programmers, architects, photographers) and home users (students, retired people, switchers, everybody else).

Desktop computing and laptops is the second division, which creates a matrix consisting of four parts: pro laptops (MacBook Pros), home laptops (MacBooks), pro desktop (Mac Pros) and home desktop (iMacs, and to a lesser extent, Mac minis).

People who need raw power will buy the Mac Pro, and it isn't very expensive for someone who's running a business. The iMac provides a lot of power and value for the home user. Also, there are BTO options when you order any Mac. You can add faster hard drives, graphics cards etc. So maybe there is no need for an intermediate machine, or at least not a market for it.

But yes, you are right: it's easier just to go with the herd, go to a large electronics warehouse and get some cheap Windows Vista laptop. I might do that too next time, to be honest, but I would wipe the hard drive at once and install Ubuntu or Debian. Much nicer and easier. I have personally no use for Windows.

An astounding fact about Vista benchmarking

[pandrijeczko]

I've been buying a few PC magazines over the past few weeks to read laptop reviews before I actually ended up buying one.

Since I've been looking for a gaming-quality laptop, I've been paying specific interest in GPU chipsets & 3DMark benchmark values. In one magazine I read, they mentioned the fact that in order to benchmark Vista properly, they had to ***LEAVE THE LAPTOP TO SETTLE DOWN FOR 30 MINUTES AFTER BOOTING*** before even thinking about accurate benchmark figures because of what Vista is doing after boot-up.

If that is actually a true fact then I'm thoroughly amazed.

Incidentally, I settled on a Dell XPS M1710 in the end which Dell would not sell me with XP - but which I found new from another dealer with XP on it at a considerably discounted price.

Vista Compatibility Mode

[plusser]

Surely when Windows XP is no longer available, the unofficial Windows compatibility mode for old hardware will be to run the computer in Linux and only use Vista when the is no software solution available for what you are trying to achieve. And of course if you want to play games, you will probably be buying a Wii instead of a computer anyway.

Re:Vista 64-bit is a nice OS. Its not perfect, tho

[pandrijeczko]

Whatever you think of Vista, its still easier to use than linux and has more software AND it is better than XP security wise.

I really hate to see generalised sweeping statements & despite criticising the poster for never having used Vista, you don't sound to me as though you've used Linux much.

Firstly, let's get rid of this "easier to use" myth. The GUIs in Windows, Gnome & KDE are similar enough that the average Joe Sixpack could adapt to using any of them relatively easily - features like "Save", "Cut", "Paste", etc. work pretty much the same across the board. Sure, Joe Sixpack has problems at the Linux BASH prompt, but in my experience he also has problems putting in wireless keys, creating a new partition, configuring permissions, etc. in all those nice graphical Windows tools also.

I'm happy to accept that more people "know" Windows than they do Linux but no-one leaves the womb with an instinctual Windows knowledge - they still learnt from scratch at some point and it would not take any person longer to learn the basics in Linux than it does in Windows.

Secondly, I think you mean "more COMMERCIAL software" rather than just "more software". You seem to forget the wealth of FOSS applications out there that run both within Linux & Windows. Sure, a lot of it is less mature or feature-rich than commercial counterparts but I would argue that, for example, OpenOffice has more than enough features and usability for the 95% of MS Office users who don't get into VB macros and the advance MS Office integration stuff.

Please remember that most commercial software vendors capitalise on the fact that most Joe Sixpacks find it easier to part with a few hundred pounds/dollars/euros for a shrinkwrapped software box than having to themselves go find, download & install free software from the Internet.

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[random0xff]

It's all about the eye-candy. Windows XP didn't offer anything that Windows 2000 didn't already offer. Actually it did, but the eye candy you refer to was just the thing needed to make Windows 2000 suitable for all home users. Still powerful, but looks friendly. Example: double click a jpeg and it opens in a viewer with zoom and print buttons, instead of in the browser (Windows 2000).

Re:vista performance is slow even with eye candy o

[GPL Apostate]

So you're saying that a modern bloated OS is a better platform for running the new bloated application software, and that throwing a quad-core processor and several GB of RAM at the solution proves this?

If I were developing an OS today, it would depend on whether I was in collusion with companies like Dell and Intel to sell new hardware. If I were, I would certainly bloat up my OS with as much processor-chewing bullshit as possible. The little bits of animated paper that streamed across the dialog box while copying files would contain the 3-D rendered actual content of the files being copied, for instance. Why settle for the usual inane bullshit eyecandy bloat from Microsoft if we can do better?

How about the New/Classic Coke strategy?

[WheresMyDingo]

Maybe MS should just treat Vista as "New Coke" Windows and release Windows XP SP3 as "Windows Classic".

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It even existed in Win2000, and perhaps even in WinNT 4.0. You just had to know where to look and how to activate it.

Victimized twice?

[lordshipmayhem]

So why does a consumer group want to victimize the consumer a second time - they've already been victimized by Vista, now by DRM'ed XP?

Re:Vista 64-bit is a nice OS. Its not perfect, tho

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I have used linux plenty. I still even have my slackware 1.0 book and disc. I've run redhat for extended periods of time on my home computers and i ALWAYS found myself hitting walls, usually dependency problems, or poor media player support etc. Having recently tried Fiesty Fawn, I quickly found out that it absolutely hated my ati x1550 and would not run in desktop resolutions higher than 1280x800. That sucks considering i have an HP 30inch monitor that runs at 2560x1600. BTW I tried it right at the time i was building my quadcore workstation for home and i was able to run vista side by side with ubuntu on 2 different pcs. I was going to try to stick it out with ubuntu as my web/email/fucking around pc... but i couldnt even get the dam thing to identify my videocard modes right. Editing the cfg did nothing for me either.

I could not get compiz to work at all, and i really wanted to try it out. It bitched about my videocard lacking something. Which is ridiculous.

I've been into computers for 20+ years. This stuff isnt that new to me, but Linux is a headache that i'm often not willing enough to put up with, because in the end there are hardly any apps i require on the OS. Most of my apps run in windows, i'm a professional 3d animator/modeller for games, special fx etc, and i'm also a pro photographer on the side. Linux offers NO solutions for my field. Yes linux has softimage, maya, houdini and renderman, but both softimage and maya run better in windows, and all of the other accompanying applications that compliment my workflow are on windows only. I'm not an IT guy anymore. I was when i was a kid, when fucking around with computers in everyway was fun and desirable. These days i work, i have my interests, I have my areas of expertise that I excell at, and i expect my OS to be transparent and work so i can get to work. I dont want to tinker with Linux. I want it to work... and again... at the end of the day.. the apps i need are not there. So why am i going to bother?

I'm not against linux, I've time and time again given it a chance, hoping to see it improve. It certainly has since the old Slackware1.0 days :) And it is a usuable OS for some people... But for most, its not worth the headaches.

The Gui's in windows, Gnome, KDE are similar enough that the average joe sixpack could use them. YES. you are right in that statement. However Vista works with my graphics cards seamlessly. I do not need to dig into some cfg because for some reason the ati driver doesnt want to do anything other than 640x480, 1024x768, 1280x800.

It just works.

Yes Commercial software is what i'm talking about, because FOSS software is rarely of quality and lacks the funds to become refined, streamlined and tailored to specific tasks. Thats not to say FOSS authors are not talented, they just have limited time, resources and scope. Gimp vs Photoshop. Blender vs Softimage XSI or MAYA.

Dont even start me on Open Office, Its primitive at best. Office 2007 is incredible to use, and has a nice ui to do it in. Open Office functions and is usable, but again this goes back to the point of "refinement" or lack there of, due to limited resources and scope.

Commercial vendors capitalize on features and refinement, and not the reasons you put forth.

There is a huge difference in the interfaces for Blender vs Softimage XSI. Because for years, Softimage has focused on UI refinement, powerful features, streamlining workflows, and providing killer tools... yes at a price. But thats what price helps do, it helps fund a team that is capable of refining their software.

Blender on the other hand, is a collection of great tools, within an interface that is a mess. New features, often very good features are added, but are more so, thrown into the package, rather than tailored in. They dont have luxory of refinement, but they do have the necessity and knowledge to implement new tools. OSS is great at that but it often fails to compare to commercially funded software products in refinement. Its often the difference between weekend hobby vs carear. You can only have so much time and resources to devote to free projects. Commercial software excels at refinement.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[kocsonya]

> It was the first "usable" version of Windows. It did things that were arguably miraculous.

You mean *on a PC*. Win3.1 was only miraculous if you came from DOS. Look at the other players around that time (Win3.1 came out in '92, Win3.0 in '90), such as Acorn, Mac, Amiga, Atari: they all had all those miraculous features *for years* (I don't mention the unix variants for they were not affordable then). Heck, they even allowed you to create a folder within a desktop folder, that 3.11 did not allow you to do, IIRC. I had both Amigas and Win3.1 boxes at home and I was using a Sun Sparc at work. It was painful to use the Win3.1 box. There was nothing new there, except for those who already were not used to anything but MS at the time. Win3.1 was a 16-bit OS, all the others I mentioned were 32 bit *and* had been for at least 5 years...

What a stupid article

[stewbacca]

When I bought my Porsche 914 and realized it was a piece of crap suped-up Volkswagen, I demanded that Porsche give me the previous year's 911 Turbo instead.

Re:What a stupid article

[Barryke]

Yup. They did buy it themselves, the end.
I'm flabergasted this news made it abroad .. never expected anyone could take any of it seriously.

" I dont make a fuss out of my RC-car which batteries included are less perfect than the other ones in the store. "
Analogy if not clear already: "RC-car" == PC, "batteries" == Windows Vista, "other ones" == any of these

I just fell for the marketing. Boeuhooh, live and learn.

sorry but I have to laugh at your post

[stewbacca]

most people feel tied into windows either because they don't want to learn something new or because

Yeah. How hard is it to learn Mac OS X after using XP or vice versa? I would say making ice is harder.

they have software that ties them in or both.

Its been what, two years now since all Macs have shipped with Intel chips, yet the slashdot crowd STILL doesn't realize you can run Windows on a Mac?

Apple's range of desktop hardware is also terrible

And pretty much every professional review would tell you how wrong that statement is. For once, I'll drop my anecdotal evidence and let the computer publications speak for me on this one.

Sure there is the odd mac arround but nothing to make the person who went in shopping for a PC think about getting one instead.

Which is the exact behavior the post above is pointing out.

Re:sorry but I have to laugh at your post

[petermgreen]

two years now since all Macs have shipped with Intel chips, yet the slashdot crowd STILL doesn't realize you can run Windows on a Mac?
I realise that but adding a retail windows license is going to push the already high price of mac hardware even higher.

And pretty much every professional review would tell you how wrong that statement is. For once, I'll drop my anecdotal evidence and let the computer publications speak for me on this one.
sorry poor choice of words on my part.

I didn't mean the hardware itself is terrible (indeed it is very well made). It is the selection that is terrible.

lets take a look at apples desktop range

mac mini: (Prices start at £399)
laptop hard drive and optical drive, integrated graphics. Yes the small form factor is nice but you pay a heavy price for it in terms of both performance and upgradability.

imac: (Prices start at £799)
nice if the built in monitor fits your needs, you don't use a kvm switch and you don't mind having to unnessacerally cart along the monitor when/if you need to take it in for repair/support.

mac pro: (Prices start at £1,509.01)
very nice machine with as much expansion capability as you could want but you pay through the nose for it.

contrast this with mchines from the likes of dell, even in the bottom of the range home models (some of the bottom of the range office models are really stripped down but given the price is less than half that of the mac mini that is forgivable) i can select a cheap build time option to get a graphics card with dual output or the horsepower for gaming. Alternatively I can easilly add one later. None of thier desktops come with built in monitors so my monitor selection can be mostly independent of the internal components.

Re:sorry but I have to laugh at your post

[stewbacca]

Ok, so I see your point now that you've tempered them back towards reality. I still have a few minor disagreements. The 20" iMac can be carried in for service in the original box with one hand, but given the repair history of this model, you most likely will never do this. The Mac-mini is signficant, because there simply is no competition. Other companies have tried to make mini computers, but they haven't had nearly the success Apple has. (I personally don't get the allure, but obviously there is a big demand for it). Bundling Windows with a Mac isn't that much more money. Bootcamp is free, and you pay the price of some XP disks. Maybe buying the disks from the store is a bit more expensive than OEM, but hardly a deal breaker. If someone is taking the plunge into a Mac and wants XP, they aren't going to be bothered by an additional $200 for windows. I built my own PC so I had XP disks laying around already. I don't know if it is legal to use them, but I don't use the PC anymore, so why not?

You don't need a KVM switch for an iMac. It supports dual monitor output in both mirror and two monitor layout. (I upgraded to the better video card, so I'm not sure if the stock one does this). You can even run Windows on one and OS X on the other. It really is brilliant. And yes, I realize other PCs can do this too, but it isn't fair to say the iMac can't without a KVM swtich, when it clearly isn't the case.

I think you (and thousands of slashdot posts elsewhere) really are just wanting Apple to make bare-bones towers for rock bottom price, but this will never happen. Just like Mercedes-Benz will never make an entry level economy car. It just isn't going to happen.

I'll take you up on contrasting the Apple line with the likes of Dell...you overlooked one very important thing in that Dell's don't run OS X, but Macs do run XP. For me, that is the bottom line. And yes, I know it's Apple's fault for not licensing OS X to Dell, but since that won't ever happen, I have to trust (and hope) that Apple keeps making good enough hardware in the mid-range like they are now in the Intel iMacs. Watch this space, but I'm just going to predict that the majority of Mom and Pop computer users in 5 years will be using all-in-ones modelled after the current line of iMacs. The PC all-in-ones mostly suck, but that's because very few of them put the quality into the design like Apple does. Anyway, I'm already going to be modded -50 for off topic, so enjoy your week! Stew

Re:sorry but I have to laugh at your post

[petermgreen]

I'll take you up on contrasting the Apple line with the likes of Dell...you overlooked one very important thing in that Dell's don't run OS X
indeed if you want OS-X (some people like it, I personally prefer linux but can see the attraction) legit you don't have any choice but to buy your hardware from apple.

the Mac-mini is signficant, because there simply is no competition. Other companies have tried to make mini computers, but they haven't had nearly the success Apple has. (I personally don't get the allure, but obviously there is a big demand for it).
Do you have any evidence that people are buying the mini because of the form factor and not simply because it is the cheapest mac on the market?

I think you (and thousands of slashdot posts elsewhere) really are just wanting Apple to make bare-bones towers for rock bottom price, but this will never happen. Just like Mercedes-Benz will never make an entry level economy car. It just isn't going to happen.
It doesn't have to be bare bones at a rock bottom price, something with similar specs to the mini but with PC like levels of expansion room for a slight price premium over the mini would be just fine.

sadly you are probablly right, much as I would like to see a lower end mac that isn't in a cripplingly small case with no expansion slots and/or bolted into the back of a monitor with one of its two display outputs permanently routed to said monitor I doubt apple will make one. It wouldn't fit with the image they are trying to project and would also badly hurt mac pro sales.

Re:sorry but I have to laugh at your post

[stewbacca]

Do you have any evidence that people are buying the mini because of the form factor and not simply because it is the cheapest mac on the market?

In true slashdot user form, no, I don't ;-) But, it is hard to fathom that the average intelligent person would buy a crippled MacMini for $200 less than what they could get a better iMac for, IF they weren't attracted to the pure simplicity of the mini form factor. If $200 is a big concern for the consumer, they most likely aren't consdiring a Mac in the first place.

Re:sorry but I have to laugh at your post

[petermgreen]

where do you get that $200 figure from?! both the UK and US apple stores show the base model imac as being twice the price of the base model mini.

Re:sorry but I have to laugh at your post

[stewbacca]

Well, fudging a bit, but the "higher end" mini and the "lower end" iMac (to make them more comparable) comes out to about $200 if you don't already own a monitor. $400 difference if you already have a monitor, and the Mac Mini is actually MORE expensive than an iMac if you configure it with a 20" Apple Cinema display.

Even a totally spec'd out Mac Mini is still not as good as the low end iMac though. I guess your point is valid if you are stating people will want an absolute bare bones Mac-mini for $599. But then again, I believe most people in the market for a Mac will see the benefit of spending $1100 on an iMac compared to the relative weak Mac mini configuration. I do have one friend who felt it was better to buy a Mac mini and his own third party monitor, but he was sadly disappointed when he used my iMac. Faster, with a better monitor ;-)

Windows refund

[matt me]

Possible? In some cases. Easy? Never. Dell refunded this man, marking the cheque as 'good will', and they have since confirmed that the refund is not standard policy (read that carefully). Other Dell users may have received refunds - * please quote examples below*.

I bought a computer from Acer (I recommend none of you ever do). I contacted them outlining their legal obligation to me and received this email.

Regarding your enquiry, We can do this however you need to pay the carrier and assessment fees which is £41.13. Once we have received the laptop and made sure the operating system is no longer on it we will return your machine to your with a refund cheque of £50 Yes, that's right. They wanted me to post them my whole computer (at my expense) to their service centre, which would charge me a £41.13 for assessment. Hah!

Twelve emails later, we've not progressed far. They're now offered me £61.12, no assessment fees. But they still expect me to post my whole computer (which costs ~£15 each way, uninsured delivery). I've told them I've erased Windows (in fact I've even filmed and photographed the affair), but oh yes, and they still want the whole computer posted, and they say they must remove the hard-drive and erase ALL DATA. No thank you, I'm using it! Of course, the whole assessment centre thing is pointless, because anyone could have made a copy of windows operating system to CD (in fact, the computer was set up to do this on first boot), sent their computer to have the hard-drive wiped, and then restored Windows on its return. This whole thing is a ludicrous policy concocted to escape their legal right to the consumer.

I am now at university and no longer have the time to continue pursuing the refund. (£61.12 of a £350 computer = 17.5%). Acer customer support are the worst I have ever experienced, I would never buy from them again. Other Acer users have had similar experiences. (If you receive your computer faulty on purchase, they will try and charge you £41.12). Had I the time, I would like to continue this with consumer groups, and then on legal grounds, and encourage a large boycott of Acer's product.

Do not expect a refund. Even if you are prepared to work hard, you can get nowhere if your manufacturer are as underhanded as Acer.

Re:Insert the standard "Just use Linux or Mac OS X

[stewbacca]

60-70 percent of Apple's computer sales are laptops: Macbook and MacBook Pro machines. I know this because I work for a major reseller. The rest is Mac Pros and iMacs.

So Mac Minis make up 0 percent? You know this because you work for a major reseller? Lemme guess, you wear a blue shirt with a yellow Best Buy logo? Apple disagrees with you on your figures as well, but what would they know?

And for the record, it hasn't been "years" since Apple has had an affordable mid-range tower. They were discontinued in August of 2006 (with the introduction of the Intel Mac line). I doubt Apple will ever make another consumer level tower, because Apple has a long history of expediating the obsolescence of outdated computer stuff (5 1/2" floppy, 3.25" floppy, the serial bus, for example). Everytime Apple does something like that people say "Apple is CRAZY! What are they doing!?" Then a year later, everyone is doing the same thing as Apple. I'm not saying the tower is going away, because there are a lot of tinkerer's out there. But it probably IS going away from the Mac market, because there AREN'T a lot of tinkerers out there.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:question: "I don't know why people don't like i

[fwarren]

From experience of working with several Vista system at work. Belive me, it HAS issues.

There are some programs that if you run the installer, UAC will kick in and ask for administrator privileges to perform the install. Then when you run it. That program will be the bane of your existence.

However....if you would have right clicked on the installer and selected "Run As Administrator". The program would run fine.

And no, going back and reinstalling does not solve the problem.

One of the sweet joys of my life is getting to heckle my boss while he is dealing with a Vista issue while he is explaining the gayitry of Linux to me.

Re:question: "I don't know why people don't like i

[fwarren]

"UAC prompts" -> I think I see maybe one of these a week (can't actually remember the last one), and never in an unexpected fashion, or one that doesn't also happen in OS X or Linux.

I only ran Vista on my laptop at work for a month. The idea was that I would see what end users would deal with on that dark and dreaded day we start using Vista (unless SP1 fixes a lot of issues). Which meant I had to run it without turning off UAC. Being a power user administering a network. I saw a LOT of UAC. Notwithstanding, my end users would have seen it several times a day. This is not even including our Quickbooks 2005 users. We would have to pay $7,500.00 or so to move up to a version of Quickbooks that Vista does not choke on.

As far as Linux or OS X. Well, I am used to being prompted only ONCE for each time I need admin privileges. In Vista it is not uncommon to be prompted several times. For instance, once to go to admin mode, and a second time for permission to copy a file into a system folder. Well damn! I thought when I dropped the file on the system folder and it asked for admin privileges. It new it was asking because I was moving a file. So why after switching to admin mode FOR THAT VERY REASON, does it have the genius idea of asking me again to confirm or deny copying that file?

The UI has changed" -> the changes are cosmetic. The fundamental UI features and concepts (widgets, task switching and windows management models, program launching, etc) remain the same as they were in *Windows 95*.

Configuration is a real PITA though. Almost everthing can be fond in 2 or 3 different places. You can get to the same component in several ways. However, so many things have moved to different places and changed names. It is difficult to administer the system. We are down to only two Vista systems. It is always fun to take a support call from a Vista userwith a networking issue who is 600 miles away.

Yes I know, more experience with Vista would help. Still Microsoft has broken so many of their interface guidelines. What would make them think it is a good idea to take a software interface like lets say, system configuration. Then change it so much that a system administrator with 12 years experience of dealing with 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP is back at square one. That is really leveraging a companies investment in Microsoft Windows software.

The sheer volume of FUD spewing out of the anti-Microsoft brigade about Vista is staggering

Microsoft is not having the extend the amount of time they are selling new copies of XP because of the vocal minority of Linux and OS X users who go "poo, poo" and don't like Vista. It is end user and business who are discovering and spreading the news that Vista is not getting the job done.

Even on day one, how much of a complaint was there that XP would not run the software people needed to run? Nothing at all like there is with Vista. I remember having to buy new hardware back then. Almost immediately all hardware was XP compatible. Within a year there was hardware that you could not get 98 drivers for. This is not true for Vista.

Believe me. I have NO love Microsoft. I thought with XP prodcut activation and the right of Microsoft to push updates AND deactivate or change functionality. That Microsoft was tightening the noose on folks. I wished for it to be seen as a dog and have slow adoption. With the Beta program for Vista being over 18 months old, Vista being available to businesses for 10 months, and retail for 8. With many PC makers going Vista only for 2 months and them having to backpeddle on that. Vista has both tightened the noose even more AND is a bigger dog that XP ever was. Also the non geeks hate it.

Almost all non-geeks that I know you have gotten Vista systems have hated them so much they have gone back to XP. The only one I know who is still running Vista, I think does not want to bug anyone to do a nuke a pave and reinstall all the software they would need to do their job.

Re:vista performance is slow even with eye candy o

[drsmithy]

So you're saying that a modern bloated OS is a better platform for running the new bloated application software, and that throwing a quad-core processor and several GB of RAM at the solution proves this?

No, I'm saying that a modern "bloated" OS takes better advantage of current hardware. Windows Vista will make _vastly_ better use of a quad-core, 4G RAM machine that NT4 ever could. As will Linux 2.6 (vs older versions).

Re:To all those who "don't understand" the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The "hominis" here is the poster that was being replied to. Moron.

Linux ABI?

[Anonymous Coward]

When the ABI changes, people complain that this is Linus' fault. Lots of people say "create a stable ABI for drivers!!!".

When it's MS, you at least say "so? that's the fault of the manufacturers!".

Re:Insert the standard "Just use Linux or Mac OS X

[Cannelloni]

Why so antagonistic? That's so out of place, and there's no need for that. I simply forgot about the Mac mini; we don't sell that many of them since we are mainly aimed at the pro market. No need to get rude and nasty, either. I don't wear a blue shirt with a yellow Best Buy logo. You really shouldn't readily categorize people or draw quick conclusions about them like that. I'm a professional and I do know what I am talking about, like most people on this forum. But you are right about the second bit: Apple loves to ditch old tech and introduce something new, and quite often ahead of the rest of the market, and so sometimes there are few peripherals available for that technology for some time.

Re:Insert the standard "Just use Linux or Mac OS X

[stewbacca]

Sorry if I came across as being rude. Bad slashdot day I suppose. However, when appealing to slashdot users based on your authority, you should be careful not to make such simple mistakes in your logic, otherwise it kills your credibility. I'm sure you meant no ill-will by it, but there are more posers on slashdot than there are professionals like you and I.

Re:Insert the standard "Just use Linux or Mac OS X

[Cannelloni]

Probably, since the internet is a big place. It's like this giant, crowded, noisy bar where people keep spilling each others' beer: "-Oh excuse me, mate!" "-You bastard, what did you do that for?" "-Sorry again." and so on. ;)

Maybe we should get back to the main topic: Vista, apparently a software release that MS really screwed up. I feel sorry for anybody that's forced to use it. Will post some new experiences from it today in another thread.

Re:Look, a M$ Turd! Re:Read the Vista Failure Log.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourself, troll. You can't even spell.