New OS give me a break!

Ok we have an operating system (Vista) has bugs, needs driver support, needs a hell of a lot! They are already talking about the new OS, they have their best and brightest on that project not on Vista! I am not happy. I think Bill is great giving all that money to Africa! But don't steal it from me to make you or your wife look good! What you all think?

 

That's exactly what I thought when I read it. Vista needs so much work already, and they are already thinking about their next payday.

 

Well, at least it shows they have the foresight to realize Vista was a dud. Now if only the fanboys would catch on...

 

foresight but they do not admit!

 

It's not Microsofts' fault but with the software/hardware makers who didn't produce the proper drivers for their products to work with Vista. It's easy to blame MS but you don't see the whole picture.

 

Whole picture buwhahahha! Microsoft kept changing Windows to the last minute, making it very hard for companies to scrape together some drivers.

 

It's not drivers. I had a completely working Vista 64bit install. It felt a little sluggish, was slow to boot, the control panel seems much harder to find things now. I had to search the control panel all the time. The tools suck, complete backup was useless for me, defrag said "may take a few minutes to a few hours" well what is it! Can I goto sleep or what?

The many versions of Vista is a joke. There should be one version, and you are given the option during install as to what features you want. You should not have to pay extra for drive encryption and Texus Hold'um.

I just could not find any features that made my life a lot easier using Vista. I am going to give it another go with my new laptop (dual boot it with Ubuntu) but I was not impressed so with Vista 64bit Ultimate.

Vista needs a lot of work to polish it into a mature system like XP only started to become after SP2. They should be working on Vista full time and not working on their next cash cow.

It's just seems like they are focused on making more and more money all the time first, and making quality innovative products second. And that is not the way togo. Apple is doing well because they are focusing on making good product and letting it sell it's self.

 

Haha, Vista Defrag. Yet another dumbed-down "upgrade". Who in the world thought it would be a good idea to remove all semblance of duration from the defragmentation? Now you have no idea which parts of your drive are being defragmented, how your drive looked *before* the defragmentation, how you drive looks *after* the defragmentation, how long the defragmentation is expected to take...

It's completely nonsensical. And it's Vista in a nutshell. Flash without substance. And a step backwards from XP.

 

Yeah, but then again Vista development started even before they released Windows XP. Therefore it is not that surprising . They can’t develop a new OS in a couple of years you know…. If Vienna (Windows 7) is really the so called " Blackcomb " we've been hearing, then they have started working on it long time back.

 

Driver support is hardly one of the major issues with Vista. I didn't encounter any driver issues when I ran Vista. What drove me mad were all the Vista bugs and "features".
That said, the driver problem is certainly Microsoft's fault too. If they want drivers for their OS, they have to work for it. Help companies write drivers, make a stable driver API that does not change after the product is out of beta, provide adequate documentation, and on-site engineers to help out, when necessary.

And I think it might be a good thing that they're working on the next Windows. Might be easier to get that up and running than fixing Vista. Primarily because most of what bugs me about Vista seems to be by design. If it was just a matter of bugs, I'd agree with you, they should just fix them. But it's also a matter of a lot of features that do little more than annoy and confuse the user, or slow down the user interface with fancy animations and shader effects..

 

The control panel is the same. If you choose classic style you will see that it is. The new style makes it less cluttered. Vista does have a learning curb if it didn't it would still be XP! What Vista does in the background is the big improvement.. ie memory management.

Apple is different because they have strict control of their hardware/software development under the guise of intellectual property. Apple doesn't give out their codes to anyone. Why do you think there aren't that many programs designed for Apple or hardwares that are compatible? A company has to have Apple's permission to even make a program/hardware to it's system.

If you actually played with Vista for awhile you'll find that it's a big improvement from XP. More drivers are coming out now that will make it shine. Lots of people are hesistant to change but they're also the ones that cry for something new.. go figure. Vista is here to stay so better get used to it because XP will be no more in 2008.

About 2-3 years ago Linux developers stated that they're be surpassing Windows as the next generation OS. What happened? Now they say that it's growing by leaps and bounds. Duh, where is it? I haven't yet to see the advantage of using Linux. Hardware compatibility is spotty at best. I tried Ubuntu and it sucked. It tried to mimic Windows' GUI and some of my hardwares weren't even recognized. And to tell you the truth there's so much variations of Linux that even I get confused which one is best. Each camp claim that their Linux is better than others, but hey, aren't they suppose to use the same coding/interface?

 

i agree with kanehi - the improvements they made on usability and UI alone are fantastic. i love the new explorer layout, features and the persistent search. it runs a bit ragged on my dual-core desktop with a gig of RAM, but it flies on my laptop which has double the memory.

as for those complaining about frame rates or performance hits, when hasn't microsoft released an operating system that demanded more resources than the previous? the arguments against using Vista were the same leveled against XP when it was first released - it is too slow and resource intensive, driver support is flaky and the new UI takes up too many resources, etc.

 

So if, according to you, it took XP until SP2 to be mature, what is different about Vista? Small problems aside, I'd hardly call it a step back. It just takes awhile to catch and surpass a mature OS like XP. The potential is there, and I highly doubt anyone expected it to be there right out of the gate.

Plus, there are soooo many different development areas in MS. Just because they are developing Windows 7 in one, doesn't mean they are forgetting about Vista. You know there is probably another department that is researching and testing the next great music player to compete with the iPod.

 

So what is the "big improvement"?

You make it sound like a bad thing? That's how they make a quality product. They vertically integrated their development process so they can control every aspect of it.

You keep talking about big improvements but do not list anything thing significant. What's changed that is so good? A new UI with transparency? New Explorer? How do drivers make it "shine" I already had working drivers?

Firstly this is not a Linux vs. Windows thing. You are just saying that Vista is ready for prime time, and it's a good idea for MS to pull the main Vista team off and put it into bug fixing mode. So what does Linux have to do with it?

You can not say Vista is good by just saying all alternatives suck, which they don't. Linux is not perfect, if it could run everything I needed I would be using it all the time, but that does not automatically make Vista good.

The difference is this time they are forcing us to upgrade. My laptop had no XP option and DX10 will only run on Vista, and as kanehi said XP is being phased out in less than six months. Vista is not a step back, but it still has problems that need attention. They should be focusing mainly on Vista development still. That's the main point here.

The user account control scheme is retarded. Yes it provides added security, but for a power user it is popping up all the time. And if I disable it then what, you lose their super security feature? MS can blame you if your system gets a virus?

Look I am not a Vista hater I bought the Vista Ultimate 64bit so I could upgrade to it. It just has a lot of problems. I already feel ripped off for buying Ultimate edition, it was meant to have extras and all I got was Texus Hold'um and Bitkeeper.... And Bitkeeper slows your computer to a craw. Now there is news that MS is already developing their next OS to get another $300 out of me just pisses me off more. And at the same time they are dicking us around delaying Service Pack 1.

Obviously we know that MS is developing the next OS, but when they are not releasing service packs, and not fixing bugs it makes me sad to hear them releasing news about their "new" OS already.

I think I have a bigger problem with MS more than Vista itself.

 

"About 2-3 years ago Linux developers stated that they're be surpassing Windows as the next generation OS. What happened? Now they say that it's growing by leaps and bounds. Duh, where is it?"

Where did you read such statements? As far as I'm concerned Linux developers are far more humble and less deceiving than Microsoft's marketing team. They say that Vista is now the most secure OS! Please.

 

Apparently some people don't peruse the net for what Vistas' improvements are. I can't argue with someone who doesn't do their homework and just do "blab" arguments. Sure Vista has more eye candy and might seem to run slower but you're ignoring what it's doing in the background. Read CNET and other eZines and educated yourself on what Vista is all about. You know the saying.. don't judge a book by it's cover.

I tried Vista Ultimate and it's a good OS. I didn't see any significant difference in booting time compared to XP. What I do notice is that it shuts down longer.. I guess because since it uses most of the memory it's writing back to the hard disk. No OS is immune to security issues. Because MS has the "largest" stake, hackers will target it. Apple is not immune either, when their system gets broken into Apple does a hush-hush countermeasure, mentioned once in the news and won't hear it again. But when Windows gets hacked... it's all over the news for days. Firefox is not secure either. No program is immune.. hackers do what they do best, looking for weak spots. Security software companies tend to hire the hacker after they serve their time to help improve their program.

At the end use what's best for ya. But be humble and don't grumble about things you don't understand, educate yourself.

 

kanehi, how do you decrease the DPI in Vista? It was possible in XP - quite easily, I might add. It appears to be impossible in Vista. Would you consider this to be an improvement, or an innovation? (Or perhaps some combination of the two)

 

Actually I would say this is a miserable failure of microsoft to educate consumers on the reason for the new OS, I've no idea why I should switch to Vista from XP (other than MS trying to shove it down my throat) and most of the other techies I talk to either hate it, or don't care to bother paying a small fortune for something that they have no idea why they should switch.

Microsoft has failed to entice me away from XP, and I brought XP day one so... yeah! Way to go MS

 

Uhh no. I should not have to read anything to know that an OS is better. It should be instantly apparent through general use. How about you do some homework and read about all the problems with the user interface, performance, usability, missing features etc etc. And let all us stupid people know what's so great about Vista that I should spend more money on it to upgrade?

I guess I should goto Microsoft.com and read all about how Vista will improve my life then I will understand why it's cool. Absolutely amazing that "some people" have to be told by a website what they should and should not thing is good. I actually USE operating systems to figure out what I like and dislike about them, I do not need to be told by CNET or anyone else.

If you can get Vista installed and working then it's fine, but what I am saying is there is nothing worth spending time and money on "upgrading" to it.

No they are not, but both Apple and Linux systems are designed from the ground up to limit the ability for hackers to get into your systems. MS still has bugs in Vista that went all the way back to Windows 95.

If you actually follow security issues like listen to Security Now podcast you would have heard about the Windows **** File exploit that affected all versions of windows from 95 thru Vista. And allowed malicious code to be run by viewing a preview image. That is not good security. And shows that Vista is still using legacy code from several years ago.

Also what Linux developers? There are thousands of developers working on many different projects. Are you saying all of these people had a meeting and decided that Linux will be better than Windows in 3 years?

Anyway, as you said use what you like. But do not call everyone who disagrees with you ignorant just because they do not think the same things you do.

 

WOW! I can't feel the LOVE! Anyway I am mad marketing is King, I bet they could of continued to update but they chose not to, why? I think money! It looks like they made a mistake this time. The people who make some free products make their money on support! Example MySql, MS makes no money on support (of course they are trying). If they don't pump out a new OS every 5 years they get screwed. As stated earlier in a mix of posts, ofcourse they are working on a new OS (or elements) but to trumpet out the new one b/4 Vista is fixed is rude! Unless I buy a new computer I will skip Vista just because of the insults!

 

Wow, that's true!! I actually couldn't care less about the new search features and new looks (I actually set vista to the windows classic look). I want to know about the "under the hood" improvements, like the memory management or the new registry. You don't see that kind of stuff anywhere.
Maybe they're ashamed because they were promising so many changes in longhorn that they couldn't deliver, like winFS and such.

Going back to the short mac os mention I would say that the closed ecosystem is actually bad for the consumer. Not only you don't get options but also you're paying more for a system that has lower development costs, since there's just so much that can go wrong.

 

ahahah..this is so FREAKING funny!

we all know how microsoft is, just like Electronic arts...come on!

 

Agreed.....

 

Yea? But don't brag about it!

 

Actually that's one of the pluses with Apple's Mac OS system. Because companies design product drivers and software to Apple's required specifications it's safe to buy printers, scanners and software that actually WORK. That's the problem with Windows is that any plane jane company makes software and hardware the way they want it and driver issues are endless.
That's not at all true that developers need Apple's permission to make software or hardware. I am a licensed developer. I develop for both platforms. Give real facts, not Windows fanboy facts.

 

The bottom line is Vista is here to stay and everyone will eventually use it whether they like it or not. Isn't capitalism great! Have a good one.. peace out

 

Wrong again. OSX is becoming a very serious competitor, in the past I was always worried because Apple might fold and you would lose your investment. But now they are not going anywhere its very tempting. My next Desktop might be a Mac so I can run Adobe Products and get rid of Vista.

Linux is not ready for prime time, but in the past year and half since Ubuntu has become prominent Linux usability has increased like crazy. Every release become more polished, easier to install, and easier to use. The "under the hood" features, that you feel are so important, in Linux are already superior to Windows, they just need the ease of install, ease of use, and compatibility.

I think Microsoft are thinking the same way Kanehi is. They just figure, hey everyone has to buy this they have no choice. So why should we spend another year in development making this thing really great, when we can make 20 billion dollars now by just release our BETA grade software.

It really feels like they are just shooting for a level of quality that can slip by without causing too many problems, instead of making the best product they can.

If they keep this up they will continue to see people happily migrate to OSX and Linux over the next several years. Eventually they might be in for a nasty shock. Because Apple is too big for them to buy out and kill, and Linux has nothing to buy out and kill (even though they keep trying with patents) so MS have to rely on their products which is why they maybe in trouble.

Anyway, I have had enough of this. I think I have made my points I will return to my Dell thread.

 

Not exactly I could skip it.

 

So many people have already told you why this is wrong, so I won't even bother.

 

Vista is a "fill-in" OS, like ME was.

I'm not planning to game much so personally, I'm going to stay on XP as long as there are people developing apps for it.

 

Actually, capitalism works pretty well.

However, Vista isn't here to stay (read web for info on Vienna or Win10 or whatever it's called this week) and not everyone will use it. After using Windows for ten years, I'm giving a serious look at other OS options for the first time. In addition to all the other gripes: DRM, older software that doesn't work on Vista, security, etc. For many people buying a new computer, Vista will be fine. For folks who take their computing seriously, Vista is just a sham.

If they'd included all the promises in Longhorn (new file system, etc.), it might have been worth it.

 

As long as I can play videos, use Firefox, type in Office, use iTunes, load uTorrent, and generally do everything on XP, I'm not going to migrate to the newest OS simply because it's the newest OS. Let everyone else keep up with the Jones'.

 

To CyberGhost, Vista was meant to be a fill-in, and Blackcomb (known now as Windows Seven previously known as Vienna) was the major release. Vista still is known as a "minor release/fill-in OS", but it got so delayed that Microsoft ended up stuffing a lot of the things expected for Blackcomb into Vista. So technically its a "minor release" but in the end it got a lot of the features of Blackcomb.

And to kanehi, Vista isn't here to stay. No, not everyone is going to use it. XP is stable, XP has widespread driver and application support. Many people are going to skip Vista altogether and wait for Windows Seven.

I support Mac OS X. I use Mac OS X right now and I love Macs (although I don't consider myself a "super offensive fanboy" ) but I don't see Mac OS X becoming a major major threat yet. I see OS X taking over maybe 15-20% of the market share but ultimately (and unfortunately ) Windows will stay the dominant player.

 

So what does that make Blackcomb? If a lot of features were moved from that to Vista will Blackcomb (or Windows 7?) be another minor release? It's still interesting, but I am getting to the point of not caring what MS does anymore. It's kind of sad really, because I have had a Windows system since Windows 95. Before that an Amiga 1200.

 

If MS spent less time advertising their newest betas and more time developing good software, perhaps one day they could make an operating system that didn't require two service packs to become fully useful.

Apple has managed to do it for the past several years. Microsoft certainly isn't lacking in money or in an ability to hire competent service.

Then again, this would require them to put their products before their profit margins. And they show no signs of doing this.

The only thing more insulting than a corporation expecting you to buy an inferior product in the promise that it will improve in quality after years of modifications is the constant stream of fanboys who pretend this is how operating systems are supposed to be released - as half-working packages patched together over years to an acceptable level of quality.

 

as opposed to trolls who endlessly jab an OS or company? let me ask you then, what are you looking for or expecting in the service packs for Vista to become 'fully useful'?

 

Ah, a perfect example of the fanboys described in my post.

 

yep, like someone who has a post history of making sweeping generalizations with little to back it up. it's fine - you like Apple, dislike Microsoft and especially hate Vista. at least it gives some measure to your endless trolling.

as to me being a fanboy - ha. i just like to counter blathering conjecture with something more constructive, like questions back that are never answered. good work though!

 

elscorcho, how do you decrease the DPI in Vista? It was possible in XP - quite easily, I might add. It appears to be impossible in Vista. Would you consider this to be an improvement, or an innovation? (Or perhaps some combination of the two)

 

Well, if that's all you use it for you might as well switch to ubuntu and ditch itunes for another music manager (I consider it one of the lousiest music managers out there).
If you do gaming or use some specific program that's not available for linux, you just have to stay with windows. That's my problem, no CAD availability for linux, otherwise I would have moved away from windows so long ago.

 

considering you're the first case of anyone i've heard wanting to decrease their DPI, i'm not sure. so that one issue negates the usability improvements that Microsoft made to Explorer and the shell?

any OS or piece of software can have an arcane feature (or lackthereof) nitpicked, but i fail to see how that alone could make the total not useful.

 

Well, because lack of font scaling can cause painful eye strain in some people, making the whole experience... well, painful.

 

well Vista still allows you to easily increase the DPI (making the fonts biggers). i don't know of anyone who actually wanted to decrease the standard DPI (which would make everything smaller).

 

It's a common issue nowadays as laptop resolutions continue to increase - a large DPI for someone with good eyes (or someone who wants to fit lots of data on a screen) is like using a laptop built for 1280x800 at 800x600. Microsoft understood this in XP. They chose to ignore it in Vista. That's not progress - it's a step backwards.

I don't find Explorer (or the shell) more usable in Vista - on the contrary, I find it less usable and more annoying. It takes several more clicks to access desktop settings in Vista compared to XP, and the "breadcrumb" design is slower than clicking normally via XP. This is also a commonly-expressed complaint with regards to Vista, so I'm not sure you should tout it as a success just yet.

It isn't an "arcane feature" simply because you don't know what it is or how to use it, or have a need for it. Learn to respect the needs of others, and stop thinking solely about yourself. There are plenty of parts of an OS that many people don't use - but some people do use these parts, and it's rather selfish to declare them obsolete simply because you don't have a use or need for them.

It's simple. I need a lower DPI for my laptop. You obviously don't, and yes, fail to see how much of an impact it could have on the computing needs of people who used the feature in XP. The DPI alone is enough to keep me from Vista. For all the "improvements" Microsoft said they brought to DPI, they took out the ability to reduce it in any shape, way, or form. It's about as useful as a car without a reverse gear.

 

And speaking of complaints about Vista's newly-useless DPI function, a simple Google of Vista + reduce + DPI provides several posts by people who...CAN'T...reduce DPI. I wonder where they might have learned to expect to be able to do this. Hmm. Perhaps from that "obsolete" OS that came out in 2001, yet somehow allowed you to control the DPI in both directions.

 

i said anyone i know, and i don't think a google search will verify how many of my friends, coworkers or acquaintances want to decrease the system-wide DPI of their display. of course Google will pick up a small sample of users who request just what you want - but how does a smattering of user questions show that something is fundamentally wrong in Vista? it's one issue, and this these type of questions are asked for every single piece of software.

i've seen more people want to increase their DPI, in which case Vista's new scaling scheme offers a much smoother appearance than XP or from previous Microsoft OS.

 

This is just one example of something wrong with Vista that was right in XP. And all the justifications and rug-sweepings in the world won't change the fact that this (and many other things) either worked, or worked more smoothly, in XP than they do in Vista. For this, and many other reasons noted in this thread by numerous people, I choose XP. It doesn't make a difference to me what you choose - but disparaging users who choose XP while disregarding their reasons is a surefire way to remind people of why they stick to XP in the first place - Microsoft, and their supporters, consistently refuse to acknowledge the numerous mistakes present in their bloated, overpriced, and ultimately, inferior, operating sytem.

 

if it's a common issue i'd expect more reviewers or end-users to complain than the very small sample i see in google, and from your 'vent'. i still stand by what i said earlier, it's an arcane feature that no one at my workplace, nor any of my friends, have ever asked about.

again with the conjecture - 'commonly expressed complaint' by who? i'll give you a few seconds to furiously type generic keywords into google to respond with. you're right - MS refocused the GUI to make it more user-friendly, and that will invariably throw off users accustomed to XP. no one said there wasn't a learning curve involved, but their choice to group, in this case, all user customizations under the 'personalization' setting is a good thing which OS X also does.

as to the breadcrumbs - i can understand if it's not a feature that you use, but how can you claim it's slower? it provides a visual, interactive trail to the directory that's currently shown, allowing the user to jump to any point along that path (or any folder residing within the parent directory) with only one click. it's a feature i relied on heavily using third-party file managers in XP, and i'm glad that MS incorporated it into the shell. same with persistent searches - as a web developer i at times need quick access to my most recently edited/created files over the past X days. i can access that with a few clicks in Vista, using explorer to browse through my files and select the batch that i need. likewise with stacks to quickly point me to those PNG files over a host of folders that i've yet to convert to GIFs.

t's amazing really - you are incredulous that i referred to something as an 'arcane feature', but then in the same hand discredit the other features as trivial or, essentially, worthless. you can't have it both ways, and if anything tells me that you just have an irrational hate for Vista and Microsoft. again, your post history is quite on target about this.

so resorting to ad-hominen attacks because i called decreasing DPI an arcane feature? taking your logic to its conclusion, every single piece of software should factor in every single user's request or need no matter what, otherwise they're performing a disservice to its user base. That 'kitchen-sink' programming approach is what Apple has railed against for years. i find this ironic.

i'd hardly call the inability to reduce the DPI in Vista a deal breaker, but that's me i guess. as to your reason for not upgrading - well, that's great. you dual boot between OS X (which i assume is your primary OS) and XP, so you're set for quite some time.

 

My primary - and only - operating system is Windows XP.

 

again, personal attacks and broad generalizations without a hint of substance. i couldn't care less if you use XP or Vista, Linux or OS X - what i take issue with is that your one-man war with Vista and Microsoft is filled with misstatements, blatant trolling and horribly naive conjecture.