Hasta La Vista, Vista

<!-- Generated by XStandard version 1.7.1.0 on 2007-06-25T14:56:51 -->

by Dustin Sklavos

You'll probably tell me I am being presumptuous with this article/editorial, and that I am running around with my head cut off screaming &quot;THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!&quot; I wouldn't totally disagree with you.

But here's the bottom line: Windows Vista's effect on the market will be catastrophic, and OEMs and PC users alike are in for a very rough go of things over the next year or so.

Without further delay, let's talk about why you should be concerned ... and talk about solutions to the problems.

(view large image)

THE WRITING ON THE WALL

Before I get into the specific problems, it's worth mentioning why I'm even here talking about this at all. If we could blindly march forward secure in the faith that &quot;In Microsoft We Trust,&quot; I wouldn't need to write this. If it was just my personal feeling that Vista was a disaster, I wouldn't need to write this.

But it's not.

The OEMs and retailers know Microsoft shoved a lame duck onto the market, and Microsoft's behind-closed-doors arm twisting forced them to push Vista - and only Vista - on their machines. And why wouldn't Microsoft care? They've been able to more or less dictate to us what we will and will not use, and they've pretty much dominated the market. They are - make no mistake - the very definition of an anticompetitive monopoly. Microsoft doesn't actually need to pay a whole lot of attention to what the customers want, because its livelihood stopped depending directly on customers, and because Microsoft is in a position to tell customers what they want.

The OEMs and retailers, on the other hand, know who butters their bread. If Microsoft is the top of the food chain, the OEMs and retailers are the middlemen, and it's really their responsibility to shove Vista out the door. Most of us aren't rushing out and dropping the cash to buy retail copies of Vista; Vista's user base is being built on the backs of the OEMs and the new computers that only offer Vista. But because these companies are the middlemen, they're also the ones in more or less direct contact with the customer. Where Microsoft competes with no one, the OEMs, like HP and Dell, are locked in tight competition and they MUST answer to the customer.

Don't forget, too, that these vendors aren't just operating in the consumer market, but the equally (and possibly more so) cutthroat enterprise market as well, where there is a LOT of money to be made with exclusive contracts from major businesses and corporations. Capitalism is operating alive and well in these markets, where competition is heavy.

I'll make an aside here: Dell and HP are the two largest consumer and enterprise vendors.

The reason I'm explaining all of this to you in such &quot;well duh&quot; detail is so you can really understand the ramifications of what I'm about to tell you:

Dell and HP are making Linux more available to corporate customers. For example, you can now order a business class HP Compaq notebook with Debian installed.

Dell and HP still offer Windows XP on their corporate systems.

Dell recently started offering XP on several of their consumer models again, along with HP, as a result of customer demand.

These things should jump out to you because they're heretofore unprecedented. Even Windows ME didn't receive an industry backlash of this scale. We can all quibble over the reasons why this is the way it is, but bottom line:

• When I'm browsing laptops at Fry's the salesman informs me they still have an XP system available, showcased in all its grandeur away from the other machines.
  
• I regularly hear customers asking if they can put XP on the shiny new Vista laptop.
  
• Game developers like id Software and Electronic Arts are paying more attention to Mac OS X.
  
• There's very real public sentiment that Windows Vista is the &quot;upgrade&quot; almost no one wants, that it is a lame release, and that Microsoft's monopoly is starting to crack.

I want to be clear and somewhat controversial here: a monopoly on operating systems, managed reasonably, would not necessarily be a bad thing. PCs thrive on standards, because consumers HATE competing standards and when they buy something they want it to just plain work. It's when a company tries to strongarm the public with an inferior product - like Vista - that things start to really deteriorate.

So why are things falling apart, and why are we about to have a really rough go of things?

GROSS INCOMPATIBILITY AND POOR PERFORMANCE

One of the major complaints with Windows Vista has been compatibility or the lack thereof. Vista's shiny new Aero Glass theme winds up being a minor nuisance, randomly turning off for seemingly no reason, and I can't fathom why it's abstracted in such a way that if one program can't run it, it reduces the quality of all of them. And why is it if I run Trillian from the desktop, it'll work fine, but if I run it from the quick launch, it has to shut down Aero Glass? This is a really minor gripe and certainly not deal breaking, but it's symptomatic of the kinds of problems people have with Vista.

The honest truth is that sometimes, programs just don't work for any apparent reason. When I made the jump to XP x64 from Vista on my desktop, I actually could not burn the ISO for the x64 trial. None of my software would work under Vista, and when I tried to find new software, I wound up with a lot of coasters. What the hell? This isn't a complex task, this is burning a CD image!

One of the really nasty quirks of Vista that's been making the rounds has been miserable file copy performance, and the reason for this is because Vista is checking for DRM bits. The DRM infection in Vista is actively reducing usability for the end user, and what troubles me is that Microsoft has such a stranglehold on the PC market that they could've easily told the media industry to go forth and multiply. Does anyone remember when the RIAA told Apple to switch to variable pricing on iTunes? You guys all remember how that turned out, right?

Does anyone really believe iTunes has a bigger user base than Windows?

An issue I had using Vista - and this is purely anecdotal - has been with its SuperFetch technology. Understanding idle performance is for the most part wasted performance, we also know that the hard disk is the biggest bottleneck in a system. Whether SuperFetch wants to be inobtrusive or not, I don't want to be competing with my operating system for disk access. Finding my RAID inexplicably being near-constantly accessed under heavy load isn't just disruptive to my computing experience, it's frankly loud.

These are all things that average consumers may or may not run into, but the end result is the same: people are having problems with Vista. They hear from multiple family and friends not to make the jump.

SOLUTION: Continue running Windows XP.

If the problem were just Vista being a bunk product, I wouldn't need to write this article. However...

2GB IS ENOUGH FOR ANYBODY

Has anyone else noticed how mainstream machines are shipping with 2GB of RAM standard now? After a slow and steady arc up, we're all sort of stuck at 2GB. RAM has gotten dirt cheap, so why aren't enthusiasts embracing 4GB as rapidly?

Let's ignore the middling performance benefits currently gained from going up to 4GB for a second, because this wasn't at all uncommon to when people were starting to make the jump to 2GB. Anyone who doesn't think 4GB will be standard within the next couple years is just naive.

And herein lies the rub. In order for our operating system to fully appreciate 4GB of RAM, we need to make the jump to a 64-bit OS. This shouldn't be a big deal; the installed hardware base is certainly there, at least on the desktop, with 64-bit starting to make its presence known in the mobile segment. In fact, I'd wager by the time 4GB of RAM is affordable and accessible in notebooks, 64-bit hardware will be much more common and entrenched.

The software, however, is lacking. When XP x64 was released, it was mostly derided. After all, there was really no reason to run it instead of regular 32-bit XP. Microsoft's implementation of 64-bit code was...poor to say the least. Of course, this isn't as true today: I've found XP x64 to be pleasantly stable on my desktop and a welcome alternative to Vista.

Unfortunately, compatibility issues prevalent in Vista get compounded when one makes the jump to the 64-bit version as more applications get broken. Again, this wouldn't be a huge deal, except that we've hit the 2GB wall and the jump to 4GB really does merit a simultaneous jump to a 64-bit operating system, unless you want hordes of consumers screaming &quot;I paid for 4GB of RAM and my system only shows 3.5GB!&quot; They aren't interested in the esoterica of 32-bit addressing, they just want the computer to say &quot;4GB.&quot;

Anyone else notice how OEMs are almost entirely shipping 32-bit Vista on their machines? This is understandable and I've talked about this at length before, but the problem here is twofold.

First, their desktop machine - which everyone is used to being upgradable - is now arriving with a couple extra RAM slots, but the RAM itself is pretty much maxed out for the operating system. They're going to need to upgrade to 64-bit Vista.

Second, this means they're going to have to buy Vista all over again. Most people aren't going to understand why they're purchasing an operating system they really already have. Upgrading your operating system was a pain to begin with, but now it's going to cost more money on top of the extra RAM.

This all wouldn't be a huge deal if there were a viable 64-bit operating system for the OEMs to ship their computers with, but there isn't. I don't blame HP and Dell for not wanting to do any more of Microsoft's tech support. By botching the 64-bit implementation instead of making the transition graceful (like Mac OS X does), they effectively stall out the market at 2GB.

I spoke to a designer from Voodoo PC at the GDC earlier this year and asked her about this 2GB wall; I asked her if they had a plan or a solution. Essentially, she shrugged. I say this not as a dig at Voodoo PC, because she definitely knew what she was talking about when I discussed it further with her, I say this as an indicator that professionals, that the designers themselves, are at a loss for how to solve this problem.

Vista should've shipped 64-bit only and it should've shipped with a polished 64-bit implementation. This would've been the right play for Microsoft as an industry leader, allowing XP to continue running on 32-bit systems, because this would've forced a transition to 64-bit hardware and thus avoided this mess entirely.

SOLUTION: For those of you wanting to make the transition to 4GB or more of RAM, you may find XP Professional x64 Edition to your liking. A free 120-day trial is available on Microsoft's site, and I've found the software compatibility to be exceptional, and the system itself to be rock stable and an excellent performer. Driver support is still hit and miss, however; while finding 64-bit drivers for my desktop was no problem, they were virtually impossible to find for my laptop. Still, those wishing to avoid Vista while still enjoying the benefits of 4+ GB of RAM will likely be well served by XP x64.

DIRECTX 10 IS BAD FOR GAMERS

So DirectX 10 is supposed to be the next big thing for gaming. Interfacing directly with Windows, it promises faster performance, more impressive effects, makes your coffee, does your dishes, and impregnates your wife for you.

Okay, maybe not that last one.

We've heard a lot of promises about DirectX 10, but it has a fatal flaw: it's tied to Vista, and Vista, at least presently, offers a miserable gaming experience. Four months after the fact we still don't have stable drivers from either graphic vendor really, but least of all nVidia, who incidentally sports the only DX10 hardware on the market. Why would this be so catastrophic?

Well, nVidia's driver team isn't stupid. In fact, no doubt someone at nVidia is beavering away on the Vista drivers as I write this and as you read it. But Vista was being worked on down to the wire, so when vendors are having a hard time putting together solid drivers for it, especially with hardware as complex as nVidia's and ATI's, you can sort of understand why.

The problem remains that DX10 is tied to Vista, and Vista is not an ideal gaming operating system.

This just gets worse with recent DirectX 10 capable games, such as Company of Heroes, Call of Juarez, and Lost Planet: Extreme Condition. Now granted, none of these are native, but the idea was supposed to be that DirectX 10 would make things faster, not slice framerates in half.

The argument that these games weren't natively written for DirectX 10 just doesn't hold water with me, especially when compared to games that got Shader Model 3.0 patches back in the day like Far Cry, games which saw performance boosts along with their shiny new visual effects. The fundamental selling point was that we would be getting more performance with the same hardware, provided that hardware was DX10 capable. This hasn't been the case. At all. And theoretically, developers could (and should) just be adding features until achieving performance parity with DX9 and I don't think anyone would complain.

So refresh my memory: why exactly are we supposed to be jumping for this?

And the only games that have come out explicitly tied to Vista are Halo 2 and Shadowrun, neither of which have reviewed well. In particular, Halo 2 seems to run fairly miserably for how it looks.

DirectX 10, however early, hasn't lived up to any of its promises, and in fact has been a titanic disappointment. More than that, the features that are supposed to be unique to DirectX 10 can also be exposed in OpenGL. Given how few people readily jumped on the Vista bandwagon, it's safe to suggest there might be a slight paradigm shift to favoring OpenGL, especially now that DirectX has had its components largely broken up (more on this in my next section). It bears mentioning that id Software chose to debut its next generation technology at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference this year, and went so far as to point out that it was being developed on Macs. Likewise, Electronic Arts announced the releases of four new, high profile titles on the Mac platform.

A rejuvenated interest in Mac gaming more than likely means rejuvenated interest in OpenGL, which is NOT platform dependent as DirectX 10 is. A rejuvenated interest in OpenGL means the potential for DX10 features outside of Windows XP.

In short, DX10 is, at least at the moment, bust, and the features it boasts so proudly may indeed wind up making the journey back to Windows XP in the form of updates to OpenGL.

SOLUTION: Wait for OpenGL to update with DirectX 10 capable features, or just enjoy DirectX 9 games in Windows XP. XP is a mature platform, and DirectX 9 is mature, well-optimized technology that still boasts some very impressive effects. More than this, DirectX 10 grade parts still offer solid performance - downright ridiculous if you look at nVidia's 8800 series. If you're buying a notebook right now, you're going to want a mobile nVidia 8 series part, though. Just because these features aren't being exposed well in Vista doesn't mean you'll never need them, and beyond that, these parts offer plenty of performance on their own. On a desktop? The GeForce 8800GTS 320MB goes for under $300 now, and is worth every penny for the frugal PC gamer. The future is a bit uncertain, but I wouldn't be caught without a DirectX 10 capable part if I was even a semi-serious gamer. Even if DX10 doesn't catch fire, OpenGL may very well pick up the slack.

INDIRECTSOUND

With Windows Vista, Microsoft launched their Live service on the PC as well as their &quot;Games for Windows&quot; marketing program. Now this would all be well and good, except for a curious omission they made: the removal of the hardware abstraction layer for sound hardware. What does this mean? In short, your shiny new sound card can't hardware accelerate sound anymore. Most of us are running on our on-board sound chips, so it won't matter. But if you have a PCMCIA Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS, or were looking into the upcoming Sound Blaster X-Fi for ExpressCard, well...you're going to hit a snag.

EAX, the major sound technology that's most widely used in games, relies on having a direct interface to sound hardware. What most people don't realize is that your sound hardware can directly affect your gaming performance; if your sound card can't process sound in hardware, you WILL lose performance. In addition, you also lose immersion. While I hate Creative as much as the next guy (and maybe a bit more), EAX is a desirable trait to find in games and in sound hardware. Not being able to enable it in what's supposed to be a gamer's operating system is just absurd.

So why was it taken out? Microsoft has stated that a lot of the blue screens that occurred in XP were the result of driver malfunctions/failures, many of which stemmed from the sound hardware. Given my recent headaches in trying to get EAX to work with 4GB of RAM in XP x64 (I had to use hacked drivers for an X-Fi), I can understand this. Creative's driver team, for whatever reason, is absolutely awful, yet somehow still has their jobs. So instead of trying to deal with the problem by at least talking to the team directly or trying to help them write their drivers, Microsoft pretty much just &quot;nipped it in the bud&quot; and tried to kill EAX entirely.

The light at the end of the tunnel is that OpenAL still works for hardware sound, but it's puzzling why Microsoft would outright axe a key feature of DirectX in Windows Vista. Beyond that, Creative has a program called ALchemy that basically translates DirectSound calls to OpenAL in Vista, allowing EAX to be utilized in Vista on X-Fi, with development for Audigy cards on the way. But your EAX game has to be supported by ALchemy.

SOLUTION: Upgrade to a Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi and use ALchemy in Windows Vista. Alternatively, continue enjoying all your favorite games in XP, where EAX isn't an issue.

FLASH MEMORY...ACCELERATION?

Here's something really funny. Windows ReadyBoost technology is designed to make use of a USB flash drive (or flash memory embedded on the motherboard) to improve performance in Windows Vista, chiefly as a quick fix for low RAM. Which is great, because you're going to need it with how much RAM Vista hogs. Well, except for one fatal flaw. I'll illustrate it for you.

First, Windows Vista's sweet spot is between 2GB and 4GB of RAM. That's fine, 2GB is pretty much standard these days anyhow.

Second, at around 2GB, performance improvements from ReadyBoost are negligible, and I've seen benchmarks that actually show a minor degrade while using it with high amounts of RAM. Of course, we're talking about fractions of a second here, but we're also talking about fractions of a second here. Which is to say, completely negligible and likely unfelt by the average user.

Now, keeping these things in mind, the fatal flaw is:

ReadyBoost only really improves performance at 512MB or 1GB of system RAM, where Vista will be crippled by the low RAM anyhow. In situations like these, Windows XP would be the better choice, as the operating system has substantially lower overhead.

In short, ReadyBoost only &quot;benefits&quot; computers that shouldn't be running Windows Vista anyhow. Who needs this?

We'll compound this further. ReadyBoost also requires you to buy a halfway decent flash memory stick to use. If you buy the cheapie at your local Fry's Electronics, the $30 for 4GB, chances are the access time will be so dog slow that Vista won't use it - and will tell you so. Why didn't you just go buy 2GB of RAM for a little over twice that, and actually get your money's worth out of it?

SOLUTION: There is no solution. ReadyBoost is a feature looking for a market. People with systems running 1GB or less of RAM would be better served by just running Windows XP and forgetting about Vista. That said, if you already have Vista on one of these systems, ReadyBoost is the cheaper choice, but you would be better served just buying more RAM.

CONCLUSION

I haven't even touched on how nasty the networking interface is in Vista, or how the allegedly &quot;improved&quot; security really isn't a great improvement over XP's after all. The fact of the matter is that Vista is bunk, but more than that, potentially marks a real sea change in the market. I've seen more and more Macs running around on campus at UC San Diego over the past year, and everyone is taking notice. After all, Intel Macs really are FAST. Actual open interest and development of a gaming engine on the Mac platform should be a big sign, too, along with the general distaste OEMs seem to be exhibiting for Vista (note: they sell it because they have to.)

Linux and Mac OS X continue to eat into Microsoft's market share. With Microsoft aggressively trying to force XP out of the marketplace, they leave end users with two essential options: suffer through Vista, or switch to an alternative operating system or platform. While I don't personally endorse or care for Linux, the Ubuntu distribution has been making major headway and seems to be a very hot topic.

Vienna, Microsoft's next Windows, is due in 2009, and amusingly was announced not long after negative public sentiment toward Vista was beginning. Let's hope they get it right this time and actually give us features we need.

I may seem hard on Vista, but I have honestly tried using it on multiple occasions with varying levels of disaster. My sister, anxiously awaiting my finished review of her shiny new Pavilion dv6500, is planning on &quot;downgrading&quot; to XP, finding that some of the programs she needs to run for her business don't run in Vista. I've tried making the jump several times and even championed it in its beta days. But here we are, six months after the fact, and nothing has changed or improved, and I just don't see what can really be done to improve it. We didn't have these problems when XP was released, at least not to this degree. Device drivers weren't a huge deal because XP was really just 2000 with a couple of the good features from Windows ME (yes, they exist) and a shiny new coat of paint. Drivers in Vista are a mess because it was being worked on right up to the deadline, and because it's built on a heavily modified XP codebase that specifically changed how drivers interfaced with the operating system.

Oh well. Here's waiting for Vienna.

 

awesome article, will probably downgrade to XP after I get my new laptop sometime soon

 

Guess now I wont even think about upgrading to Vista until Service Pack 4 is released for it.

 

The downside is that I feel 'forced' to use Vista on my next notebook. It will have a DX 10 video card (any OS with DX10 games support?!). So I hope that until then all the bugs and everything will be fixed.

Great article, thanks.

 

I've been on Vista since January. I have mixed thoughts on it. My new Lenovo X61 tablet I ordered has Vista and while I was given a choice for XP Tablet PC Edition, I went for Vista because the handwriting was better. If the handwriting was the same though, I would have strongly considered XP.
I actually have an unused copy of XP x64 Pro, I may install that. We'll see . . .

Here's something I have been thinking of for a while: If it wasn't for the nice-looking GUI, what would Vista be? Even in classic mode, XP is a clear step forward over 2000. XP didn't need and didn't rely on its new looks to sell. Vista does on both counts.

You brought to light a lot of great points in this article Dustin, thanks.

 

An excellent and informative article Dustin

 

People wrote similar stuff about XP and Win 2000 when XP was lunched. Give it some time. It does have some great improvments if you look in detail. I love the way it syncs with my window mobile phone for example. The voice recognition is also great.

How long will it take for 50% of all PC users to use vista? 12 month from now? 18?

 

Second. It is shocking how short people's memories are.

 

I agree, I think Vista is solid OS, I remember 98 launch, ME and XP. XP was a pile of crap for quite a long time, pretty unstable compared to Vista now.

Its a very well written article, but its sensationalism.

S>

 

The problem that I really have is MS could have killed DRM by saying no...instead they embraced it, and their WGA anti-piracy model. Now, I do not have a problem with MS protecting their software from piracy...but I do have a problem when that same 'protection' invalidated my legally purchased copy of Vista. Of course, that happened a week before I went back to XP.

I wanted to write an article about the 'positive' aspects of Vista, but after dealing with MS to 'validate' my license....let us just say I had a sour taste in my mouth.

The biggest issue is that XP is no longer going to be available at the end of this year. So pick up your copies now.

Solution to (almost) everything: Virtual Machines. Yes, new technology does have its uses, especially as Intel and AMD have embraced VT extensions. If you don't like Vista (and I cannot blame you), and need XP after it is no longer available (but you still have that spare copy!)...download and install Ubuntu (or your flavor of choice) and run XP as a virtual machine. You'll need hefty amounts of ram (2GB+) to pull it off, but it will allow you to run the software you need in the environment it was built for.

VMs will always work for XP because those machines 'emulate' slightly older technology. You can still take full advantage of the processor, but all other parts of the 'virtual' PC are older motherboards, IDE virtual discs, etc...that XP already has all the drivers for. VMWare 6.0 (which just came out) even allows virtual machines to access all your USB devices, so that even in Ubuntu you would still be able to use that XP-only ancient device you have sitting next to your PC. No other virtual machine program offers USB connectivity, and right now VMWare (presumably 7.0) is setting it sites on sharing the graphics card too. You heard me...XP in a virtual machine (host OS as Ubuntu), and you would be able to play your games as well.

As for other Vista related issues...I will highlight the problems that I had with the OS:

• My copy of Vista was deemed not genuine, and only a call to MS and a full reinstallation of the OS could fix that issue.
• Driver support...ATI bytes, and my canon scanner (which is now sold as Vista capable even) does not have properly working drivers.
• DVD/Media playback...is it just me or is full-screen mode VERY buggy.
• Windows Sidebar...supposed to be nice! But it interferes with full-res gaming...a lot.
• USB drivers...am I the only one whose printer and other devices re-installed their drivers about 3-5 times a day? My copy of Vista had severe issues maintaining a USB connection...
• WiFi connectivity was also an issue for me. I'd lose my perfectly good connection twice a day, and only by restarting Vista was I able to get the internet back. That isn't productive.
• Partitions and file tables...yes, Vista even has issues with that! The best episode I had was when I deleted about 15GB of backup files on one of my drives. It confirmed the delete operation, the files disappeared, but the 15GB remained allocated. I had an empty partition with no files, yet Vista still said 15GB was missing...and only by formatting that partition again was I able to finally reclaim that space. I don't want that kind of build up of GUNK hogging my main OS partition!
• There were quite a few other minor issues, but I'm tired of typing now.

 

What's apparent is M$ going more arrogant that ever.
Also, Vista SP1 is not out until 2008 or even later.

 

What will end up happening is that people will just hang on to their XP machines for a little bit longer, and the OEMs will get hurt a LOT...at least until they offer non-Vista (aka: Linux) machines to the masses. See my above VMWare comments.

If Vista doesn't shape up, my next PC will be Ubuntu with XP as a virtual machine.

 

Great article, thanks! I just can't get over the title, "Hasta La Vista, Vista!" LOL

 

Fantastic read. Not only very informative but well written as well!

Congratulations!

 

Let me address a few points some of you have failed to mention.

Firstly, there is only one obvious reason regarding security issues with Windows Vista (and all other previous Windows OS's for that matter) and that is simply due to the fact that it is the most widely used OS in the world. Far, far, the most widely used. So if you were a hacker-in-training, which OS would you train yourself on? Obviously.

Now, with the Mac OSX vs Linux vs Vista debacle, Linux is actually very insecure, even worst than Vista. 80% of directed attacks towards government and private sector servers are aimed at Linux computers compared with 12% towards Windows and 3% towards BSD and Mac OS. *Successful* attacks, however, are whopping high for Linux systems: 57% of attacks are successful while 35% of Windows attacks are successful. Negligible amounts of attacks are successful towards Mac OS systems. Here is the link: http://www.macworld.com/news/2004/02/20/osxserver/index.php?redirect=1077285308000

Is the Mac OS really that stable? Of course not. It's just because it only comprises a fruitless market share (in OS terms) of about 6%: http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/12806/ as of February '07.

Secondly, the DRM issue. Microsoft is a corporate, capitalist company. Why would they NOT want to side with the music industry? They're getting paid for DRM, and they even have their own research team on DRM. More jobs, more money, more patents. DRM itself is an industry/field. Lastly, sad but true, Microsoft couldn't care less about piraters, warezors, haxors, and the likes.

The other complaints in the article, while I do not deny their validity, are complaints belong to a small niche of the computing market. Not everybody are avid gamers thus not everybody will care about the x64 version of Vista and having capabilities of 4+ GB of RAM. Nor does most of the market care about DirectX 10 (yes, it's true, the gaming niche is quite small). Most people won't even know what DirectX 10 is. Microsoft, thinking as the grand corporate structure, knows this and knows very well that Vista can only disappoint a small mass.

And, like the others mentioned above, there were exactly posts of anxiety, upset, and frustration just like this when XP, 2000, ME, 95, on and on and on were released.

Sensationalism, indeed.

EDIT: Fixed 2nd link

 

Glad I chose XP when Vista came out. Works well on my MPB 2.4 Ghz. I don't need to wait for Vista improvements when the tried and true XP is available now.

 

Great article.

Like many others, running XP Pro again after having had a (bitter) taste of Vista.

 

I had issues with Vista, leaving me baffered.
After reading that article Vista BSOD with my schoolwork (not saved).
Ok, basically i experieced compatibility problems, weird error messages, and frankly, a RAM monster. And the novelty of Windows Aero Glass worn off, leaving a feel that the interface is over-hyped.
The article has a lot of truth in it, be it readyboost or performance. Got to agree with that.
XP x64 might be my next stop, but arrgh where's those drivers?! Planning to try Vista's x64 drivers on it and pray.

 

I like Vista. Haven't had any problems with it.

That said, others have and will continue to have them.

For those saying that people had similar complaints with earlier operating systems, I wonder how much of that is based on faulty recollection?

There were indeed complaints from people switching from windows shells like 98 and me to 2000, and much had to do with gaming, which 2000 was never intended for.

But Windows Xp was mostly cheered from the onset from most quarters. Yes, there were minor issues here and there, mostly driver related -- and in many cases they were directed at 3rd party drivers resulting from old hardware not being compatible with the new 32-bit OS.

Video, sound card, printer and other hardware manufacturers simply did not want to write drivers for 5 year old hardware.

All in all, though, Windows XP was a very solid effort from the beginning. You did not here the kinds of complaints seen above. The writing was on the wall has feature upon feature was stripped from Vista in order to get it out the door.

Like I noted earlier...Vista is OK for my purposes, but there is enough out there to give me pause if I were buying a new machine.

 

I had to go into the device manager and fiddle around with ACPI drivers for a few hours before I could even get my screen to turn on and off with my notebook lid closing and shutting (Power management features had no effect, it would just turn off and not come back) The networking is buggy as hell, I cant see my desktop via wireless, but I can via ethernet. It crashes frequently, Moving files is hideously slow. Random chunks of data have disapeered, And the windows folder takes up 9GB which is a fairly big ammount when you only have 75GB of space. Im going to stick with XP and just tart it up a bit. Oh and help files from xp programs wont even open.

 

I don't agree with this analysis.
Firstly, the usage of Linux in servers has a very greater share than the normal user market, and much of the big servers run Linux.
The fact that the extreme majority of the attacks [80%] target Linux is because of this too - Companies like RedHat, don't make money by selling Linux to users, but by selling Server editions to the large companies.
Apart from the fact that Linux servers need maintenance and proper training, A wide variety of companies make Server Linux distro's, which means you are comparing the single distribution of Windows Server with a number of Linux distributions. This report has most likely merged the Linux and FreeBSD and Unix percentage too while they are not the same at all - though similar in many standards (When Microsoft servers went down once, the temporary servers were equipped with FreeBSD )
So this report really does nothing until it specifies :
-What companies and governmental servers use Linux ?
-Did those companies have proper maintenance ?
Currently, the neutral reports indicate that Vista is currently on equal grounds (if not worse with XP SP2)
And this report is totally irrelevant to Vista's security in the first place, there is no Vista Server at the moment, it's all Windows 2003 Server which comes from the XP generation

That's the main complaint here. We say that by doing this M$ is making many of the users unhappy and has reduced Vista's value for customers.

They all caused some complaints at first, no one denies this. But none of them faced such a great protest as much as Vista, not even the Windows ME.
And that's with copying much of Mac OS X's features.

 

nice article there! it basically said what everyone is thinking now, vista is flawed. its not the same as when XP came in, as mentioned XP was basically meant to close the gap between visually appealing and reliable. win2k was quite reliable and mistake edition (ME) looked good but one second later it was crashing on you, so merging the good things from both was a logical idea. I remember back then there was always a chance a win2k driver would work with XP but with Vista we dont have the same chances and the system is quite buggy to say the least.

Unless Sp1 sorts anything out, Vista will be a pain until something better comes along. I know many think linux is the answer and I wish that were true but unfortunately linux versions just arent as widely supported as microsoft stuff.

Im stickin with XP for now, was quite annoying when I found out software I need for uni doesnt work on Vista! If you have a new computer, you are being forced, thanks to microsofts screw-ups, to purchase XP and replace your new system's OEM included hunk of junk!

Vista

 

That was a well written article Pulp, and an enjoyable read. I too am having many of the problems you highlighted with Vista; specifically file transfer, networking security, sound acceleration, and compatibility with many software applications.

File transfer is in particular quite annoying. I never quite understood the reason until I read your article, everything just seemed to work slower in Vista. When I delete articles or copy them it takes 2.5x as long as XP and always requests 2nd verification (UAC) after I hit delete/copy/paste/etc. Another file transfer issue, when I download applications off the internet and install them the disk has to analyze/check the file for errors before continuing resulting in my computer freezing and hard drive going nuts for a few minutes before the application continues (few minutes is typical for 750mb+ files).

On the topic of downloading, network security comes into play. Vista has many internal networking security issues that are essentially blocking files that I WANT to download; typically they will sometimes freeze at 99% and not continue. I have called linksys and talked it over with the Vista tech support people, the latter concluded I had corruption on my user account and had to create a new one. Needless to say this did not fix my problem but I told them it did anyways because I wanted them to stop calling my house.

I actually own a Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS and have removed it from my computer since installing Vista. Not only has creative not released significant drivers for the card as they magically have stopped supporting it but keep selling it on the market to resellers not to mention all the support CDs software no longer works...ill stop the creative rant here before it goes on. EAX made games sound so good on XP, and many games supported it or other sound acceleration standards. All those have been thrown out the window for no reason other than those you stated in your article, which is proposterous as you said in an OS 'slated' for gamers.

As I mentioned the creative software applications no longer working in Vista, many many many other software applications no longer work. I don't think this is as big an issue as the exact same thing happened when XP was released and software was not compatible. Pulp, this will change overtime and it is much too early for developers to have major fully functional applications ready for Vista.

Finally, I'd like to throw in my own personal opinion on the operating system as a whole instead of focusing on its isolated problems:
I have been using Vista since its early beta stages and have had a lot of fun with it while running into a few hurdles. As an operating system in general it looks much better than XP and includes some very helpful features (desktop search, sidebar, Aero, and an updated information center). The overall appearance makes it hard to switch back to the previous generation, despite its problems. Regardless of how polished XP is, regardless of Microsoft's tactics of trying to push this on everyone, regardless of all the problems with the operating system itself I believe it will be polished overtime just like all of Microsoft's previous operating system generations. It will not be a problem for you though because XP will be supported long after Vienna comes out.

 

First of all, ask longime Mac users about program compatibility. Compared to what Mac did with OS X, Vista is nothing. In fact, in my opinion, Microsoft's dogged committment to making sure that ancient legacy apps still work with Windows (and most of them do, annecdotes aside) is what's keeping us all from having a truly next-generation OS.

Sometimes you just have to replace a program. That's what I had to tell myself when XP came out, anyway...

Also, how can you even write this:

???

If you had a blog when Windows 3.1 came out, would you have seriously written "4 MB is enough for anyone"? Maybe a 2 GHz quad-core processor is enough for anyone, but there's no such thing as too much RAM. I can max out my 2GB just by running Google Earth, for crying out loud.

Finally, who cares what the dude at Fry's says? He knows people are scared of Vista, and so he's telling you what you want to hear. All he wants to do is sell product, and if "bright and shiny" stops working, he'll go with "safe and comfortable." Dell and HP still sell business-class XP computers for the simple reason that large companies fear change -- not as an editorial on Microsoft. Even if Vista were a Godsend, they would still be selling XP machines on the side. What is that supposed to prove?

No, Vista wasn't ready for prime time (and that was totally Microsoft's fault), but there's a laundry list of things it does better than XP, and the problems aren't anything SP1 shouldn't be able to fix. And remember how crucial SP1 was for XP?

 

He meant that Microsoft thinks so
Though for most XP users 2GB is pretty good.

 

Windows is Windows
same old crap. Period

I have been on Linux since 1998 and never looked back again

 

Then why did they even bother to create a 64-bit Vista version, lame though it is? The OP criticized Microsoft for not going whole-hog on 64-bit, but the real reason Vista 32 is far and away more popular can be summed up in two words: program compatibility. Ironic, isn't it?

 

It's Microsoft's implementation that will define the program compatibility, not the other way around.
Many programs had to be re-compiled and/or changed to become Vista compatible. At that point, all those codes could have become either 64-bit or 32-bit, and the 64-bit is supposed support all the 32-bit programs with the exception of some of them like drivers.
And the reason that Microsoft made a 64-bit version of Vista is because many number crunchers and enthusiasts will like the use all of the raw power in their rigs (which using 32-bit edition prevents them from using all of it) And the 64-bit editions of Vista, suffer from many problems, like the lack of any firewall software for a long time.
The only disagreement that I have with Pulp is that for a 64-bit OS, the processor also has to be 64-bit, so making Vista 64-bit exclusive will kill off the compatibility with many intel processors, like the Core Duo.
Nonetheless, I believe that Microsoft could have reduced the gap between 64-bit and 32-bit versions greatly, to reduce it to something like a matter of driver compatibility.

 

It's a poor article by yet another person who is under the false pretense that being branded a Vista-hater is "manly".

Even if everything had worked properly, this person would have still written this article.

It's easy to find faults.
If you were honest you should have taken an unbiased stand and compared the pros and cons. Instead, you made your intentions (Vista bashing) very clear from sentence 1.

Things have to change. One can't stick with xp forever. Vista has several improvements over xp and more and more things will improve with time.

I heard one guy remarking that xp, ME, 2000 etc didn't receive so much flak..but he forgot that the internet wasn't anywhere near as widespread in those times.

The whole program compatibilty issue is being blown out of proportion. Just check in the Vista website and you'll see most common software and hardware do work well with Vista.
If there are remaining compatibility issues, it's up to the software developers to make their programs Vista compatible.
Microsoft cannot produce a new OS if the code were to be exactly the same as xp's.

And about the increasing popularity of Macs. Well, the author conveniently ignored that the increased popularity is because Macs can now run Windows - Vista or xp!

There's no attempt by Apple to improve the Mac platform and make it compatible with programs. Instead they seek help from Windows to make their systems more appealing!

The biggest attraction of the forthcoming OS X Leopard is that bootcamp is built in! Great eh?!

Next about games being developed for Macs. If the Mac platform won't change but expect programs to be rewritten to suit it, then why can't Microsoft expect the same with Vista?
If few programs are incompatible, let those developers make their products compatible with Vista. Why blame microsoft?

 

A bit personal experience on Vista. I have been running it on my 4 years old computer with pentium 4, 1 gig ram, and radeon 9800 pro since its first public beta release.

Gross incompatibility and poor performance? I had none of that. First of all I didn't have any drivers issue, but then again I don't use any obscure hardwares. Performance is about on par with xp and the file management system overall is even slightly more responsive. As a programmer, I was a bit concerned when I found quite a few applications I use frequently not working right with their beta and release candidate versions, but thankfully Microsoft fixed all the issues before they pushed Vista out of the door. The only problem software wise is how slow Creative is releasing their drivers, Creative blame this on Microsoft taking away Direct Sound, but seriously, they had over a year to work on this before Vista was released, wtf.

2gb cap? Microsoft is not Apple, expecting them to convert its user base to 64 bit OS as gracefully as Apple is ridiculous. As of now I personally am quite happy with the 32 bit version, since my Pentium 4 doesn't really support 64 bit operations.

As for directX 10 issue, I mostly agree with you. DirectX 10 is not bad for gamers, tying it to Vista as marketing gimmick is.

And ReadyBoost is great. Works well on improving the life span of my 4 year old machine. I'll be upgrading my hardware soon, but until then, ReadyBoost makes me happy.

Finally, anyone comparing Vista to Windows Me is crazy, period. I would never go back to XP myself.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with Dijo. Rep up! It is indeed ironically true that Apple is trumpeting bootcamp as a huge feature for their next OS and it amuses me when Apple fanboys talk about the feature. Analogous to how BMW fans would brag about a feature allowing them to swap in Toyota engines under their hood.

 

OK, first of all... what? OS X contains the Carbon API which allows for native usage of legacy apps on OS X. I'm sure it's not perfect, but I've never heard any complaints about it. And secondly, let's not forget that OS X was a HUGE departure for Mac OS. It was based on a completely different kernel and a completely different style of OS, as it is based on BSD vs. the old Apple proprietary Mac OS kernel. That's a pretty drastic change. The same thing happened when Microsoft switched to the NT kernel with Win2k (and subsequently WinXP). This is why many gamers would not switch from Windows 98; most of those games simply wouldn't run on the NT kernel. But Vista is a completely different story, it's based on the same NT kernel as Windows XP (and more closely Windows Server 2003). Therefore, the only reason I can see for the gross incompatibilities is either sloppy code, or a lot more has been changed with the OS for reasons that seem to have no benefit to the user that we don't know about.

I overall agree with the article. I will concede that Vista could possibly be more stable than XP was when it was first released (and it is certainly more stable than my copy of Win2k), and it may also be more secure. I've never complained about that, not since RC1. My complaints are still with all the other stuff; DRM, the failure of DX10, personal software incompatibilities (such as the software needed to access my university's network), poor (or no) performance on completely capable hardware, the high price, and increased monopolistic lock-in. It's just not good for the customer.

 

Why is it ridiculous? Last I checked, Microsoft had more money, more resources, and more manufacturer support than Apple. And let's not forget that Apple is not only making a fully integrated 64-bit OS (that runs just as well on a 32-bit system), they're doing a little more than a year after they completely switched platforms (which also went smoothly). If I didn't pay attention to my experiences with Microsoft, I would actually expect them to do better than Apple.

 

This situation is much more complex than you make it out to be. Please don't blame the OS, it's not just the OS involved, it's also the chipset.

 

The heart of the matter is the chipset. Not even all laptops will show 4GB in a 64bit OS, only because of the chipset included.

 

There are a couple of ways this happens:

1. 64-bit Windows has an emulator (called WoW64 = Win32 on Win64) that can run 32-bit apps.

2. For .NET apps (and I assume Java as well), the runtime pieces take care of most of the 32/64 bit issues for you - running the app as a native 32-bit process on a 32-bit machine and a native 64-bit process on a 64-bit machine. No recompile required by the developer.

 

What about discussing Vista features that new apps can take advantage of? For example:

- transactional registry
- transactional file system

 

I'd have to disagree. I left windows because I was sick of it, not because I wanted to run it on another (prettier) piece of hardware. I don't think I can come back, either. I just personally felt that OS X was more fun and easier to use.

 

can all you vista haters just wait a year and see how it is then. I think if you wait there will soon be no more compatibility issues and most tings will work fine. Also, you can;t claim anything about dx10 yet as there are very few games using it yet. In the future it will be great for gaming.

 

This is very unfair, if you have visited the Dummy Guide section and the older reviews on the homepage, you will notice that Dustin is not such a person at all.

This article was not meant to be a review for Vista in the first place, both the title and the introduction prove this.
This article is meant for the people who face the "Vista is awesome " comments on 24/7, so they would know of the difficulties and the problems of Windows.

No one denies the improvements of Vista specially in GUI, the real - vs. advertised - potential of Vista has yet to be judged.
And saying that Stick with XP at the moment, does not mean that Vista does not make any improvements, rather the fact that the overall value of XP is better.

We are not only speaking about numbers, but also the ratio of negative/positive reviews.
I ask you now. Vista was aimed to be Microsoft's killer product. More than three years worth of development and having 3 of the greatly touted sub-projects canceled does mean of a big problem in the planning of the product.And the spread of internet means that Vista had time to get more feedback from people (It had best versions too, remember)
But after all this wait Microsoft came up with this OS.
And much of the problems are pending fix until SP1 @ 2008

For a long time, Apple was extremely developer enemy, now they have changed their preferences and the platform, they are undergoing a big change.

 

Isn't the 4gb problem inherent in 32-bit memory addressing limits rather than Windows Vista 32-bit?

 

Yeah, though according to wikipedia, there are some ways around it.

 

The internet was quite widespread after 99-2000. everyone was using a PC for something and many were connected to the net with them. the fact is, while the internet is only growing larger in terms of its virtual size and people using it, this still doesnt mean people who arent on the net dont use computers or windows for that matter.

the article was someone's POV in respect to the current situation. it doesnt have to be unbiased to be an article. if anyone feels insulted or angry about the article then maybe they should make a pro-microsoft article and see how it's like

and yes it isnt vista limiting the RAM, the problem is in all 32bit systems

XP is a better option simply cuz it is more reliable and more compatible. vista is new and requires a lot of work, more than XP needed i reckon. people stick with XP because it is matured and is as solid as it ever will be, vista has a long way to go to even come close to this and by the looks of things, it probably wont mature as it is being replaced quicker than XP was.

 

Comparing the compatibility, stability and secure of the 6 year old mature Windows XP with the 8 month Vista is quite ridiculous to me. Just give Vista some times until SP1 comes out and I believe everything should be fixed. And how come guy all take for granted every fancy thing like glass, aero, sidebar... of Vista? You have to sacrifice your RAM and other hardware for them! If you like the same old plain GUI of XP, then switch back to it!

Everybody pretty much has his own choice between XP, Vista, or anything else! why make such a big issue out of it?

 

it's funny how some people have the notion that people buy Mac to run Windows....actually, it's quite the opposite. people buy Mac to get AWAY from Windows. What Boot Camp and Parallels provides is a level of comfort that in case you need to run a program for work, or you need to run that occasional game or two, you won't need to buy a separate PC for that. Otherwise, Mac OS X is a perfectly capable OS to do virtually anything you want. People say, ohhh, Mac's are not compatible with anything...tell me, what kind of software other than proprietary software that you may use at work or games that there isn't a similar Mac alternative? In fact, I have discovered that quality of software development on Mac is often leaps and bounds beyond what is being developed on Windows.

 

i agree that Vista is pretty terrible, but, we have to remember one thing

XP was well received because it was replacing JUNK.

vista is replacing a now stable XP, so it's not well received.

 

Win2K was not junk...

 

He's talking about Windows ME