Revisiting the Original Reviews of Windows Vista

harrymcc writes 'We now know that a remarkable percentage of consumers and businesses decided to spurn Windows Vista and stay with XP. But did the reviews of Vista serve as an early warning that it had major problems? I looked back at the evaluations in nine major publications and found that they expressed some caution--but on the whole, they were far from scathing. Some were downright enthusiastic.'

Comments

Vista

[sopssa]

I dont think Vista was that bad OS after a little bit more powerful hardware came out and after you got used to it. It feels a bit more sluggish than XP but that's what Win7 improves with their move responsive UI (which is really important thing that always seems to be forgotten - just compare Opera to Firefox)

Everyone who have started using Win7 already are saying it's great. Even those who skipped Vista completely. Personally I will probably move from Vista once I get a new computer - I dont want to do an update nor move all the files and settings in place and install new programs right now (and more so because I will probably get a new computer soon anyway)

One of the failure points for Vista was that all the drivers had to be redone and released for it. Even if it's a better thing now that it happened, it was bad to be in the first ones. But this time they all work in Win7 too, so that's not an issue.

What comes to UAC, it's the correct direction, but lots of Windows userbase is general audience which would get annoyed with such in Linux and other OS too. Atleast it's there now, and those who dont like it can disable it.

Most of the problems with Vista was actually that it was taking Windows OS into new direction and probably needed that one OS release in between to get there and so that users get familiar and used with it.

Re:Vista

[underqualified]

i agree. aside from needing a lot more memory than what was considered "standard" at the time of its release, vista wasn't bad at all. i think everyone was just riding on the stay-away-from-vista band wagon. it's just sad that the general public believe the opinions of 12-yr-old geek wannabes or 40-yr-old bloggers who don't even know the difference between java and javascript.

Re:Vista

[dave420]

For me it didn't even take getting new hardware to get better performance under Vista. MS released some patches soon after launch that addressed the main performance issues people were having, and it's been great ever since. I'm still using it, after 2 years of no re-installs or cleaning up of my computer, and it's flying. The major problems people had, which were not addressed by Microsoft, were due to the new driver model, which made drivers less able to crash windows and generally mess up your computer (a Good Thing). Pre-Vista drivers weren't compatible, but now nearly everything has a Vista driver, so it's not a problem. The same thing happened when people moved from 98SE to XP - everyone decried XP's 'Fisher Price' interface and screwy drivers, but it was the exact same thing. Now folks are pining for XP, when in a few years Windows 7 will be the new XP. Vista was, in my opinion, rather unfairly tarnished by people spewing utter bullshit about it (which still goes on today on /.), and it'll never get over that. For those who have used it, the majority are still using it, and didn't go back to XP.

Re:Vista

[Rob the Bold]

I dont think Vista was that bad OS after a little bit more powerful hardware came out and after you got used to it. It feels a bit more sluggish than XP but that's what Win7 improves with their move responsive UI (which is really important thing that always seems to be forgotten - just compare Opera to Firefox)

So Vista isn't so bad one you get a more powerful computer, get used to the slowness and upgrade to Windows 7? Was this supposed to be tongue-in-cheek?

Re:Vista

[commodore64_love]

I never had any problems moving from 98 to XP.

In fact since XP is actually Windows NT 5.1, it was a hell of a lot more stable than the old 95/98/me MS-DOS overlaid-with-a-desktop model which kept crashing or freezing. I'm glad Microsoft discontinued that line.

Re:Vista

[Random2]

Another note to add is that Vista was the first OS Microsoft created that wasn't designed to have Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer linked, which was likely a cause for several backwards-compatibility issues.

Re:Vista

[Hijacked Public]

And needing more graphics power than was considered normal in order to display a modern UI.

And UAC being maybe the most annoying thing ever added to any piece of software ever.

And inexpicably long file transfer times.

And backward compatibility.

I used the Vista RCs extensively and couldn't stand them, even on excellent hardware. This past weekend I spent an hour or so helping a friend set up his new Vista laptop and network and was reminded of why I can't stand Vista even on hot off the presses high end laptop hardware. The UI lags no matter how much computing power you throw its way. UAC still requires multiple approvals before executing one task. Even with an SSD traversing directories is still too slow.

I've been running the Win 7 RC and have to say that it appears to fix most all of Vista's problems apart from UAC. It is probably good enough to get me to take advantage of bootcamp, which Vista certainly was not.

Re:Vista

[dave420]

I don't know what hardware your friend has, or how you set it up, but Vista flies on my machines. The file transfer issue you talk about was fixed years ago - it can easily max out our gigabit ethernet at work. Backwards compatibility was indeed broken for drivers, as it uses a new driver model to increase stability. I've used vista for years, without re-installing it, and it's fine.

Re:Vista

[pete6677]

The main reason most businesses stayed away from Vista was because there was no business justification for it. If the only thing Vista can do that XP can't is to run slower and look prettier, why would you want to install it? Remember, a business software upgrade is never free even if there is no additional licensing cost. The IT staff time required to upgrade the PCs and networks along with any user downtime or learning curve is not worthwhile just to install a slower and buggier OS that offers no real improvement over XP.

Re:Vista

[sopssa]

You complain about both backward compatibility and UAC. Most problems with UAC came from exactly that - the old software wasn't made to support it. New software is. Nevertheless, UAC is the correct direction for securing Windows as OS. People have been complaining that Windows is insecure, and now that MS takes the correct way people complain that it's a nuisance? You can't have it both ways (and you can disable UAC if you're not happy with it).

UAC nuisance goes away when you replace older software with newer one that supports it. But to support it MS had to just throw it in.

Re:Vista

[causality]

i agree. aside from needing a lot more memory than what was considered "standard" at the time of its release, vista wasn't bad at all. i think everyone was just riding on the stay-away-from-vista band wagon.

The real issue with Vista was that it didn't offer a good reason to upgrade for the many people who were satisfied enough with XP. It wasn't the staggering improvement over XP that XP was over Win98 and WinME. That's why the average person wasn't eager to install it and perhaps more importantly, neither were many corporations. Many who are more technically inclined felt that its improvements were not innovative but were instead evidence that Microsoft took some ten years to finally address some of the core flaws in XP. I personally think that stance is justifiable.

For example, UAC was the result of rampant malware infecting XP, yet a good designer could have told you before XP's release that most users running as "root" all of the time was asking for trouble. That's because other systems learned the importance of privilege separation and viewed it as a general design principle a very long time ago, before there was such a thing as Windows at all (think Multics, VAX, Unix). So now we have UAC so that the use of superuser capabilities can be limited, and if you listened to their marketing at the time, we were supposed to believe that this was innovation.

Having personally witnessed the various versions of Windows (since 3.1) slowly acquire user accounts, something like a distinction between superuser and normal user, network stacks, mount points, something like 'su' (RunAs), something like Sudo (UAC), I am reminded of that saying that "those who fail to understand Unix are doomed to reimplement it." Sometimes the word "poorly" is added to that sentence. The design principles we have seen and tested after decades of computing are sound, or they're not, yet much of the improvements I have seen in Windows were not due to robust basic design. Instead, they were reactions to the failures of earlier versions, which is not terribly innovative or interesting. I do see a lot of real innovation when it comes to OS-level support for DRM, but this doesn't make me want to run Vista either.

it's just sad that the general public believe the opinions of 12-yr-old geek wannabes or 40-yr-old bloggers who don't even know the difference between java and javascript.

It's sad that there are legitimate reasons to dislike something and that those good reasons often get drowned out by a bunch of demagoguery. You'd think the demagoguery would only be necessary in the absence of legitimate reasons, but some really seem to enjoy it. Others seem to have an axe to grind.

Call it a little devil's advocate, but I'd speculate as well that the abusive or at least "questionable" business practices of Microsoft (such as the ones for which they were convicted in multiple countries) and their willingness to use underhanded tactics like vendorlock haven't earned them many friends. While the average person just wants to browse the Web or run their office apps and really doesn't care, that only seems to make the minority who do care all the more vocal. Still, you can't worry too much about them if you trust in your own ability to know a reasonable argument when you see one.

Re:Vista

[Blakey Rat]

This is the same old complaints over again.

And needing more graphics power than was considered normal in order to display a modern UI.

Slightly, perhaps. But that's because of backwards compatibility, not some sort of horribly conspiracy against the public. OS X has the advantage that all the apps written for it knew they'd be rendering to the GPU.

And UAC being maybe the most annoying thing ever added to any piece of software ever.

Except you only really get UAC prompts:

1) When you first install all your software. After the first two weeks, and all the programs you're likely to use are already installed, you only see UAC when patching. (This is what gave people the bad impression, but what's the alternative? If Microsoft game installers a pass, like Apple does, they would have been crucified for insecurity.)

2) For buggy applications. Applications that break the multi-user contract pop-up UAC prompts often, yes, but those applications were already broken-- Vista is just exposing their brokenness. (And, UAC enables them to run *at all* automatically, without you having to use "Run As... Admin" like you would on XP and Windows 2000. In Windows XP, a broken app like that would just fail with a vague error message.)

And if UAC is throwing up multiple alerts for one task, you're tinkering with the guts of the OS. Stop doing that.

And inexpicably long file transfer times.

Patched over 2 years ago.

And backward compatibility.

Possibly worse than other Windows releases (although the compatibility from Windows 98 to Windows 2000/XP was pretty iffy, too), but still better than any other OS on the market.

Re:Vista

[Hijacked Public]

I don't fault the idea behind UAC, it is absolutely needed. But with decent implementations of the same thing having been in the field for years, why did they screw up theirs so badly?

My desktops have been Unix lineage for most of my life, so I'm used to having to provide admin credentials to admin things. But I still found Microsoft's UAC immediately annoying. A lot of that has to do with poorly written software, but that is the reality of using Windows and Microsoft should have been able to accomodate it.

And they still haven't solved most of the problems associated with bad software as even Win 7 lets it fiddle with the OS too much. It can still slap icons all over the place without asking. It can add to the right click context menu (and try getting rid of that crap). It can start itself at boot in any of the many ways Windows allows, without asking you.

Re:Vista

[Blakey Rat]

So Microsoft should, what, remove the feature because geeky people (defined as: people who already know how to disable UAC) want to do all kinds of geeky, potentially insecure, stuff?

"Throw the average user to the wolves! Cater only to the uber-geeks!" That's the philosophy they should use?

And yeah, the UI is dog slow on a machine on which linux absolutely flies. Still. Core2Duo, Nvidia 8400GS, slow as crap.

There's no reason Vista should be "slow as crap" on that machine. Maybe you've just broken something by installing low-level crap.

Re:Vista

[Hijacked Public]

Valid complaints have a way of sticking around.

We seem to have some marginal readers among us. I mentioned the long transfer times as having been present at release, which all of you apologists admit is true. Then, later in my post, I mention traversing directories. I don't know how much you know about computers, but those are two different things mentioned at two different points in my post. Kind of like when you read a book where a guy is alive at the beginning and dead at the end. Do you wonder how he did all the things in between if he was dead?

Regardless, you are right about gettings UAC prompts when you install software. You'd think one would be enough but it usually isn't. You also have a toss up as to whether you'll need to right click and Run as Administrator or not. Confusing at best to be told to install something as an admin when you are an admin and the last install you just did asked you to confirm your admin credentials. And the app you are installing is still given the freedom to install itself and its settings almost wherever it pleases on your disk.

The overwhelming majority of computer users don't really care about the technical details of why things are done the way they are, so explanations do little to mitigate the problems. Even considering those, Microsoft fostered an environment where applications could do anything they liked at install. If they want to correct that I'd prefer they do it in a way that doesn't make me suffer for their oversight. Like many other users who can exercise the choice I intend to sit it out until they do.

Re:Vista

[inject_hotmail.com]

...(XP didn't have the same kind of just-show-ui-quickly-while-its-loading thing either)

The hell it didn't! If one logs into the computer as soon as the login screen is displayed, (if the "welcome screen" is enabled) you'll see the "Welcome" line rise in a jerky fashion. That will disappear, and the taskbar is displayed right away. Because XP uses Terminal Services to show you your desktop, you'll see that the Start button, QuickLaunch area, and system tray will be blank (for only a few seconds, or longer) while your hard drive grinds away trying to furiously load everything at the same time. Win NT4 took a while to give the login screen (on slow computers), but at least when it did, one knew the OS was loaded completely.

I do like the idea of 'delayed automatic startup' in Vista (and 7 I hope)...

I remember the good old days of 'the operating system loaded', then 'you can use your computer'...now, it's a mash. So many people I know start clicking stuff and don't understand that their computer is still loading (there's no clear indication that services/apps are still loading damnit!), and they ask me why it's taking so long...then they click it again. Sure, there's a HD light that few (as in 10-15% of all computer users) people understand, and the hour glass sometimes...but nothing definitive...why is that so hard?

Re:Vista

[commodore64_love]

UAC still doesn't stop a user from clicking "okay" "okay" "okay" as they install a trojan.

Re:Vista

[hairyfeet]

What the guy got stuck with was a Vista Basic machine, and that is entirely MSFT's fault. They put out frankly ridiculous system requirements for Vista Basic and for quite awhile after Vista was released Worst Buy was pushing Vista Basic machines with really underpowered Celeron or Sempron chips and a measly 512Mb of RAM. considering folks were used to the "XP Home/Pro" way of doing things Vista Basic smelled like a way for MSFT to push their new OS onto PCs that were WAY too underpowered to ever run it.

So don't blame the guy, blame MSFT. After all how many average Joes are gonna know the REAL system requirements of a new MSFT OS, or the difference between the SIX versions of Vista? And lets be honest here, Vista Basic should have NEVER been released. It was obvious from day one that Vista Basic was a screwjob intended to let OEMs get rid of old stock by putting a version of the new OS on a machine that simply couldn't handle it and get it out the door. if you ask me a LOT of the Vista hate can be laid directly at MSFT's door for allowing machines that never should have had anything but XP walk out the door with Vista Basic and a "Vista Capable" sticker.

Original slashdot readers review

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sucks, it's terrible, I've never used it...

OS Change

[Nerdfest]

Vista pushed me to Linux, so it's not all bad.

Re:OS Change

[Malc]

Vista ain't bad, and really Win7 isn't as different as Vista was to XP. I tried very hard for 10 years to use Linux. Not any more; it's too much work. When I'm using my computer, I don't want to spend time fiddling with the OS and desktop environment. So I'm happy using Windows at work, and Mac OS X at home. Each to their own though.

Re:OS Change

[Nerdfest]

Talking with some friends the other day, after trying to resolve some very annoying Windows configuration issues, we came to the realization that Windows is just not ready for the desktop.

Re:OS Change

[UberLaff]

XP pushed me to Linux. Strangely, Vista brought me back. I think I'm the only person on the Internet who made that switch...

Re:OS Change

[2.7182]

Dude, go easy on Malc. Did you see his user ID? He must be like 60 years old. Don't forget, he probably finds computers confusing, and has his some explain email to him. And he thinks that the "internet" is inside his computer. So be nice to the old folks. Seriously though, I think you missed his point, namely the line "to each his own."

Re:OS Change

[Bigjeff5]

Same here, I got fed up with Vista pretty quickly (it came with a new computer - and blue screened at first boot) and switched to Linux - Ubuntu specifically.

Unfortunately Linux eventually pushed me back to Vista. It took about a year and a half, and by then SP2 was out all the issues I'd had with Vista before had been delt with. It it has all been gravy since then.

I'm telling you, if you aren't fond of the effort Linux takes you might want to give Vista another shot, it has improved a lot.

Re:OS Change

[commodore64_love]

>>>>> When I'm using my computer, I don't want to spend time fiddling with the OS
>>
>>That's one of the reasons I use Linux. It just works.

Challenge - Connect to this ISP (with webaccelerator) on a Linux machine. I tried and tried and tried and could not get it to work on my Ubuntu Linux laptop, and it's kinda crucial since many places I travel have no other internet access - http://www.getnetscape.com/getnetscape/?

I also had problems getting my Atari Stella and NESticle emulators to work properly (they ran but only played 1/3 of the games). Plus when I tried to use VLC Media Player to open some songs, rather than play one song at a time as you'd logically expect, Ubuntu tried to open 100 copes of VLC at the same time. My ancient Amiga OS 1.0 had the same stupid flaw. What is this? 1985?

I was forced to yank the battery of my laptop to rescue it. Linux doesn't "just work".

Re:OS Change

[QuantumRiff]

Was talking to a mechanic at a party one day a few years ago.. I kinda jokingly asked him what he drove.. his reponse was awesome:
"I love Ford and Chevy, they both give me guarantee me 40 hours a week of work, but when I get home from spending all day working on cars, I don't want to work on my car, I want to use my car, so I drive a Toyota."

I couldn't better sum up my move to Linux only 3 years ago. (after 5 years of dual booting)

"Some were downright enthusiastic."

[John Hasler]

Advertisements usually are.

Main Problem With Vista Was It Instantly Annoyed

[Anonymous Coward]

The legacy of Vista is the importance of first impressions.

for the majority of users, their first Vista experience was impeded by a slew of "you just clicked an icon! this is a security risk! are you sure??" messages, and "in order to run this program, you must have administrator privileges. do you want to run this as administrator now?" popup messages. it was very annoying, and blunted what could have been a fine experience with a shiny new OS.

This was by no means the most serious problem with Vista, but it had tremendous impact on its reception.

Well color me savvy!

[erroneus]

Hey, Harry, you were writing and editing stories about Vista back when it came out, right? What did you say? Um, thanks for reminding me. I wrote quite a bit about Vista in my Techlog blog for PC World, and was smart enough to express caution about its significance and raise questions about compatibility issues, but not savvy enough to guess it would become a legendary flop. (Here's a post from March 2006 in which I'm fairly skeptical, but say "It...seems unlikely that it'll be a Windows Me-style fiasco." Wrong!)

I recall that I had plenty to say about the last quarter, last month, last day, last hour, last minute removal of features that made Vista interesting. What was left was a Windows OS with a lot of hinderances and no benefits over the previous version of Windows. It was one huge empty promise. And I did, in fact say this was the new WindowsME. And quite predictably, I was marked "troll" and "overrated" and heard no end of how wrong I was. What I heard was that Vista was elegant and refined and that if the PC was too slow to handle it, it wasn't Vista's fault.

No one succeeded in changing my mind on the topic and it seems the masses, for once, agreed with me. (How rare!)

Windows 7 reviews are no different....

[jkrise]

But my feeling is: Windows 7 will suffer the same fate that Vista did. It will be still XP in all major Corporates; where they will erase the pre-installed Windows7 and install XP using the Corporate licenses. Software developers will continue to support XP atleast for the next 4 years.

By which time, the OS on the desktop will be irrelevant siince Netbooks will completely change the dynamics of the OS market. It will not be a stretch to predict that Linux will establish itself within the next 4 years in all Corporates where people exect their devices to boot instantly and work reliably consuming less resources like mobile phones.

Re:Windows 7 reviews are no different....

[majortom1981]

Well on my network we just got all new z600 workstations with xp .As soon as our windows 7 licenses come in we will be putting windows 7 on the machines. N oreason not to with xp mode if we need xp we just run the program virtually in xp mode.

Re:Windows 7 reviews are no different....

[tomithychen]

This has nothing to do with "depth of Microsoft's problems". Your school probably pays for MSDNAA as a benefit to students (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/academic/default.aspx/). This program has been around for a long time. I used it to get windows 98/2000/xp from my university back in the day.

Re:Windows 7 reviews are no different....

[FreelanceWizard]

I manage an Enterprise Agreement for 250 seats. The minute we upgrade our ShoreTel VOIP system to the new Shoreware version with Windows 7 support, we're done with XP. We're going to begin reimaging all computers with Windows 7 Enterprise using WDS.

Why, you might ask? Windows 7 offers a ton of advancements for the enterprise, from DirectAccess (for always-on VPNs) to improved terminal services and application virtualization (MED-V) and BranchCache (like Offline Files, but better). Additionally, it's got a cleaner interface and, in our tests, runs a smidge faster than XP for office applications on our new Core 2 desktops. Another plus is that we don't have to include drivers in our WDS image, since Windows 7 supports almost every network device I've thrown at it out of the box, and whatever other drivers it needs to download, it can grab during setup.

Admittedly, 250 seats isn't huge and the plural of anecdote isn't data, but I think it's fair to say that a lot of businesses with EAs and Software Assurance are going to snap up Windows 7. It's a major improvement over XP, and both users and sysadmins like it.

Re:Follow The Money (from TFA)

[uassholes]

PC World (lots of MS ads):

The bottom line? "All in all, Windows Vista is a great leap forward for the operating system, with a much-improved, far more useful (and pleasurable) interface; faster, better search; beefed-up security that's a big improvement over Windows XP with SP2; and far, far better networking.

Forbes:

The bottom line? "Vista is at best mildly annoying and at worst makes you want to rush to Redmond, Wash. and rip somebody's liver out...

Message control, message control, message control

[QuoteMstr]

Vista sucking has a lot more to do with sociology than technology. The problem was that marketdroids severely understated Vista's hardware requirements, tried to segment the market too finely with too many editions, and outright lied about the user experience at some levels of hardware capability. What's what marketdroids do: they lie for profit.

But marketdroid lies notwithstanding, the underlying technology behind Vista wasn't bad: far from it, actually. For the first time, there's a half-decent security model for the average user. (I don't buy that UAC sucks.) There are a ton of kernel and API improvements behind the scenes. We have symlinks, even!

Sure, there were a couple release-day bugs, but every OS has those. XP had a similar number of pre-SP1 issues. And hell, it had fewer than the first version of RHEL5 (that OS paused for a full five minutes on every boot, polling SATA drives that never came, until a patch fixed the issue.)

The "Vista sucks" meme, however, spread virally because 1) we all love to hate Microsoft, and 2) most users really can't tell the difference between good technology and bad, but they can certainly parrot what their friends say. It doesn't help that Vista really did suck for some users who were running on underpowered hardware. (If you want to argue that Vista's hardware requirements are too high, we can do that, but Vista doesn't suck on the hardware for which it was designed.)

Really, Microsoft could just rebrand Vista as Windows 7 and release it today to great acclaim: in fact, that's precisely what they did. Since Vista's release, even low-end hardware has caught up to Vista's original requirements, so despite the inevitable lies from marketing, Vista^H^H^H^H^HWindows 7 will now run fine for a lot more people. The new name kills the old meme, and forces people to reconsider whether Vista sucks.

tl;dr: Vista doesn't suck on the hardware for which it was designed. In fact, it's a vast improvement. Marketing sucks for lying about what hardware you need for Vista, however, which put a bad taste in people's mouths.

The major problem I have with Vista

[Orion Blastar]

is that it does not run Windows legacy software like Windows XP and earlier versions did.

My brother is a Gamer, and he bought a Windows Vista Home Premium Laptop, it would not run his old games like Warlords IV and we tried a VirtualBox machine with Windows XP Pro in it but it had limited 3D support and Warlords IV would not run under it. His only option is to run Warlords IV on his old Windows XP Pro desktop, but then he cannot take the game with him on his laptop.

Not just Gamers are affected, but business owners. Many have custom written software they paid for development on older versions of Windows or even MS-DOS that Windows Vista won't run. Some software needs special hardware that does not have drivers for Windows Vista and the XP drivers don't work too well in Windows Vista. Windows Vista does not have hardware drivers for a lot of legacy hardware and thus many machines even if they meet the RAM, CPU, Video, and Hard Drive requirements cannot run Vista without the needed hardware that lacks drivers.

For example my son's Windows XP Pro system has a Texas Instruments Wireless adapter, and Windows Vista and Windows 7 lack a proper driver for it. TI never made a Vista or 7 driver, and neither did Microsoft. So in upgrading him to Windows 7 I'd need to buy a new wireless card. Now if it was a hardware dongle, TV tuner, AM/FM Radio card, or multiple port serial port adapter that lacked Vista or 7 drivers it would be more expensive to buy a newer one to replace the older one. In that case most people just stick with an older version of Windows.

Windows $NEXT_VERSION will pwn all

[David Gerard]

Every review of Windows since 1994 has been the exact same. Just fill in the variables:

" I have seen the future: Windows $NEXT_VERSION Milestone $MOCKUP.

"I am so excited about $NEXT_VERSION of Windows. It will go beyond just solving all of the problems with $CURRENT_VERSION, it will be an entirely new paradigm. Forget about security problems, those are all fixed in $NEXT_VERSION. And they’re finally ridding themselves of $ANCIENT_LEGACY_STUFF.

"Also, there’ll be $DATABASE_FILESYSTEM. It’ll be awesome!

"I wonder how $NEXT_VERSION will compare to $NEXT_NEXT_VERSION.

Windows Vista not.Capable lawsuit [

[viralMeme]

"Vista sucking has a lot more to do with sociology than technology. The problem was that marketdroids .. outright lied about the user experience at some levels of hardware capability", QuoteMstr

"More internal Microsoft e-mails were unsealed today in the Windows Vista Capable lawsuit, detailing the wrangling that took place inside the company and across the industry before and after the operating system's January 2007 launch. The plaintiffs are using the messages to support their contention that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was involved enough in decisions to warrant a deposition"

'The "Vista sucks" meme, however, spread virally because 1) we all love to hate Microsoft, and 2) most users really can't tell the difference between good technology and bad', QuoteMstr

The "Vista sucks" meme spread becasue Vista did really suck, really :)

"From: Stevan Sinofsky
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:08 PM
To: Steve Ballmer Cc: Bill Veghte; Jon Devaan
Subject: Re: Vista

A lot of changes led many Windows XP drivers not really working at all - this across the board for printers, scanners, wan, accessories (fingerprint readers, smartcards, tv tuners), and so on"

As a Ubuntu fanboy...

[vorlich]

I have a grudging respect for XP professional edition that grew on me as I managed to turn off all of the rubbish and secure the system. I have not used it on since the Zone Alarm screw up, by which time I had migrated all my systems to Ubuntu. I just got completely fed up with the obscure methods of networking or anything to do with servers, apache and mysql - all much easier in the big U. I still use XP in a VM for my employers access database which really can't be migrated and since they are using Vista (comes with the new PCs) conversations about what to click on over the phone rapidly descend into farce.. (with apologies to Vista professionals, which I imagine, there must be.)
"Ok click on Tools"
"Where's that?"
"It's in the menu bar,oh wait a minute you don't have that. Can you see it on the left hand panel?"
"I can see the list of tables..."
"No that's the wrong view. Is it in the blobby display along the top of the screen?"
"What's the blobby display?"
"All those sort of chunky yellow icons at the top of the access window."
"Are they yellow?"
"I'm not sure, I thought they were sort of yellow the last time I looked at your GUI."
"My gooey? Where's that?"
"It's okay, it's your screen, along the top of the window, they're about a centimetre tall and chunky."
"No, I can't see anything called tools."
"Try clicking on the big MS circle in the top left-hand corner of the screen."
"A circle? I don't have a circle."
"It's a 3D ball, in blue with the Microsoft logo."
"What's a logo?"
"Hello, are you from the past?"

tl;dr, no one cares, but here's mine

[b4dc0d3r]

I have been forced to use vista at work for the past month or so. Here are the things I hate, mostly from the first week. Keep in mind this is based on using 2000 and XP, and having certain expectations about how Windows in general is supposed to work. No one's going to read this, that's fine, I'm just spitting in a hurricane.

1. Explorer - if a heavy IO operation is in the background, explorer frequently says "not responding". I want that in the background, and regardless of IO settings, I should be able to browse the disk. What if the only way to stop the IO is a control panel, or an application I have to dig for? Like a virus scanner, which you can't run Windows without. We have a deadlock. It's the shell of the OS, not some random application.
2. I still can't tell what's highlighted. Which is the current active window? Which folder is highlighted in Explorer? Should this be useful out of the box, or should every user have to adjust this?
3. Search - I don't even know where to begin. "Search in files" only finds text in a known file type with a filter for it. Search happens only in indexed locations by default. So it won't find the program I just downloaded, but it will look for that term in my e-mail? You should at least be able to click "Advanced Search" instead of having to find the non-button-looking button. I can't tell if it's looking for a file name or in the contents of files. It's just plain unintuitive. I still have no idea where I'm searching.
4. "Folder Options" used to have a tab to manage file types. Vista moved this into a Defaults control panel, and you can no longer manage behaviours. Anything beyond the default "Open" action has to be done in the registry, which Microsoft says is dangerous and could cause the OS to stop working. This is reduced functionality, affecting how the OS interacts with files, which is pretty much the definition of a GUI shell.
5. "Add and remove programs" renamed to "Programs" or "Programs and features" for classic view, invalidating millions of documents and confusing users. Going in further to Windows components, using IIS as an example. You can turn on or off IIS options, directly from the Windows Components dialog - you can turn your web server Directory Listing on or off through the operating system control panel. Isn't that just a little too integrated? We just added more places you have to look to repair a malfunctioning application!
6. Search *STILL* includes shortcuts. I search for *.vsd and I get shortcuts. What purpose does this serve? If the documents exist they will be found. Otherwise the shortcut will point nowhere and be useless. You can't sort shortcuts either, they are all type "Shortcut". So you can't remove your audio file shortcuts and leave your excel file shortcuts. If I search for "xls" maybe that should return shortcuts, but *.xls is very specific.
7. Explorer: Very hard to select a column heading to change the width, because the completely unnecessary Sort selector is right next to it.
8. Drop object into command prompt to avoid retyping it. Dropped because high-security areas do not accept messages from low-security areas, design was fixed for win7
9. "Copy as Path" and "Open Command Prompt here" are only available when shift-clicking. Also not available on left side of explorer view
10. Alt-Enter doesn't work in left side of explorer pane
11. Not clear if the highlighted folder in left pane of explorer is the currently selected one - the selected and current highlights are nearly transparent by themselves, and only slightly different from each other. Makes it easy to accidentally delete a bunch of stuff
12. Mouse scroll-wheel does not work in explorer left pane, automatic scrolling is supposed to make things easier. But so does a mouse.
13. Explorer: Backspace is the same as CTRL+Left Arrow, making users use the different "ALT+UP"
    - duplicated functionality, users have to retrain their muscle memory. Makes sense, but loyal Windows users are