eWeek Opinion: Vista is a Zombie

After Don Reisinger's rant over at CNet News it's now eWeek's Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols jumping on the Windows XP Extended Stay bandwagon. I thought I'd mention that it's not unusual for Microsoft to extend its (OEM) support for older Operating Systems. It happened with Windows 2000, NT and all the 9x variants, well except for Windows ME (anyone remember that?).

Maybe, just maybe it has something to do with Vista Basic PC's? Because in all honesty Microsoft doesn't do itself any favors by releasing something that "looks" worse than XP on low end PC's. Add to the fact that XP has had 6 years to establish itself and became a very reliable OS after SP2 (Service Pack 2).
Windows Vista probably won't be widely adopted until the release of SP1 (and that is mainly in the business sector only). This is standard practice.

It's only fair to mention that the mass exodus to Windows XP was mainly due to the fact that it became the first fully 32 bit client OS after Windows 2000 which was designed for the business sector and not shipped on (OEM) consumer PC's. Due to the wide success and adoption of Windows 2000, XP was built on top of that very reliable kernel. Vista is simply an upgrade, whereas XP was a totally new OS. Upgrading now is not a necessity in many cases for consumers.

Anyway, enough from me, if you want another laugh click Read more to enjoy yet another "expert" opinion on Vista.

Opinion: Vista has turned into the desktop operating system no one wants, and even Microsoft is beginning to get it.

Today, I think of Vista as the zombie operating system. It stumbles around, and from a distance you might think it's alive, but close up it's the walking dead.

The first sign that Vista was in real trouble was when major vendors started to offer XP again on new machines. In February, Microsoft insisted it had already sold more than 20 million copies of Windows Vista. Oh yeah, like there were actually 20 million copies of Vista already out there and running. Pull the other leg, it's got bells on.

If Vista was doing great, then why did Dell break ranks with the other major OEMs to start offering XP again and become the first top-tier vendor to offer XP in replacement for Vista in April? Adding insult to injury, Dell actually had the effrontery to offer desktop Linux to its customers.

Other OEMs followed Dell's lead, or to be more precise, its customers' demands. Lenovo, for example, when it rolled out its revamped high-end ThinkPad T61p workstation notebooks in July, made a point of offering not just Vista but XP Pro and, yes, several Linux distributions, including Novell's SUSE, Red Hat and Turbo Linux.

So it came as no surprise at all to me when Mike Nash, Microsoft's corporate vice president for Windows product management, announced that, due to OEM demand, Microsoft will keep selling XP until June 2008. Of course, he also claims there is little chance the June 30 date will be extended.

View: Full Article @ eWeek
Link: Digg it!

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Review: Shift Linux 0.5 (RC2) - Neowin's Linux

Next Story

iPod Touch firmware update fixes LCD issues

107 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols character it seems is not idiot at all !!!
Well YES he is, but he is doing it on purpose !!!
He not only writes for Eweek .... he writes for Linux Watch !!!
Anything bad about microsoft you will find it there (whether it is true or not ) !!!
His latest article is about ".NET" and AGAIN it is NOT a nice one either, talk about bias ...he is full of it !!!!
Mind you "Have you ever seen a good article about microsoft written by someone that is a LINUX ZEALOT ???"
Neowin should not post anymore of this guys stupidity / bias on this site, as it is MIS-information in the extreme !!!

yeah id' say the networkgin and audio stacks, woudl be a downgrade.

Yeah I'd say that your Audio Card & NIC/Ethernet Card Drivers SUCK & are not compatible with Vista. You should be badgering the Manufacturers of said Hardware Components in your machine to come out with STABILE Vista Drivers.
Not Microsofts fault.

All I have to say is that for an OS that is supposed to be the new "Multimedia Platform" it really sucks at multimedia.

The simple fact that I can watch a video in XP Full screen in winamp with no jumps hickups or issues, and watch the same video in vista with frame skipping says it all. I have an Athlon AM2 6000+ with 2GB of RAM and an nVidia 8800 Ultra. There should be NO frame skipage, period! The same thing happens on my Pentium M laptop with vista vs XP.

I love all the pretty effects they threw into vista and all of the plus's that come with it, however, I cant stand the fact that something simple like a full screen video cant even play right, not to mention the file copy issues (calculating time), UAC, and all the other crap thats wrong wtih vista. It's dissapointing that they spent like 3 years re-writing the OS to come up with this, when they spent 1/2 the time on XP and released a product with 1/2 the flaws.

The absolute annoying thing for me is File browsing... it thinks my mp3's are pictures, it thinks my files are mp3's and it never EVER remembers my windows explorer size and positions. I purchased the vista upgrade , and I think im going to go back to XP until there is a service pack for it. I am very dissapointed

~Og

According to the article: "Vista is simply an upgrade, whereas XP was a totally new OS."

Too bad XP was an upgrade to 2000 (NT 5.1) and Vista has had a majority of its code re-written (and is now NT 6.0).

What the?

Vista is something that we consumers are going to have to live with I'm affraid! I have my issues with Vista, but at the end of the day, we have got to learn to like it because allmighty Microsoft aint gonna change!

I think that Vista SP1 is likely to clear up many of the initial teething problems that Vista presents to users...

I tried to post a comment on the Linux Watch site and was told that I was banned !!!!
I had heard that some people had had their posts deleted, well I didn't even get that far !!!
Talk about a law unto himself this "Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols" writer for LINUX WATCH and spreader of LINUX FUD !!!

My post was deleted :S and I wasn't offensive at all, just wrote what I liked and what's still to be fixed in Vista... damn

I haven’t gone through the entire article. I stopped where it said XP is a brand new OS while Vista is an upgrade. When will idiots stop writing articles, especially when they haven't got a clue? If you are reading this you idiot let’s look at kernel numbers Windows 2000 is 5.0 and XP is 5.1. Vista is 6. I think that explains a lot without going into detail about the improved task scheduler, re-written network and audio stack and DWM. As far as concerning a "more intelligent UAC" maybe we could have Vista psychic edition; I can guess what you want to elevate. That also goes to the idiots who believe whatever they read on the net without anything to back it up.

well, just to add my stone to the wall: I've been using Vista since it was released on MSDN and the only problems I've had wre with third parties not updating their software/drivers. The OS works very well, UAC itself is not that bad and its presence nowadays is a mandatory thing anyway. If SP1 makes it better, good! meanwhile, the current version doesn't trouble me at all and I'm also someone who uses it 7 days a week, 10 hours a day (I should probably get outside some more). I don't see any reason why I would go back to XP as, as far as I'm concerned, Vista is still a very nice improvement over it, not a perfect one but still good enough to justify an update if your specs are good enough (and if they're not, stick with XP, you're not trying to play your XBox 360 games on the old XBox are you?).

The main reason why so many people dont like Vista is the same reason why so many people didnt like XP some years ago (yes, again, XP/Vista old days comparison) : lack of drivers and support from software vendors. Those same vendors are doing their best since last year to make their clients beleive that Vista is the issue, that they've been working on it for monthes and that making the necessary improvements is a very difficult and long process. That's pure BS, we get the same story served everytime a new Windows version gets released. With time, this will get solved with good programs and good drivers and for that, there's not much that Microsoft can do.

I'll evaluate Vista once SP1 is shipping.
I didn't have any issuses when I tried it last time, but the hardware support was still lacking a bit.

Anyone know how Steam works in 64-bit Vista? I've seen some people cursing Steam (not Vista) over the bad Vista support. Will Valve Software's games run 64-bit exectuable in a 64-bit enviroment?

Anyway, Vista definately felt more secure from a user perspective, but I don't know how the underlying programs work in comparsion to Windows XP.

I consider Vista to be a new era, and XP just a flashy version of 2000. 2000 worked just fine and XP tries to repeat that, but the GDI+ and whatnot made XP a pain in the beginning.
The objectification only makes me more mad than pleased, since they are more prone to memory leaks.
A plain API that we've seen in NT3 to 2000 marks a clear border between the OS and the guest software, while the new trend of objects just make it a blur.
The complexity of the software only make them more prone to kick you in the face.

I call for a complete re-design of all operating systems. Today's operating system do so many things that they don't need to do. They only create needs for certain features, which only add to the overall complexity.
I wouldn't mind having to type "LOAD halflife2" again, if it meant that my operating system generated less overhead and was less likely to crash.
I don't like how Windows programs litter the registry with complete garbage, or install some system hogs as services (*cough* Symantec *cough*), or how Linux software demands that you're logged on as root just to litter your system folders with files that it won't help you clean up later.

looses all credibility with "Vista is simply an upgrade, whereas XP was a totally new OS". Anybody who knows a little windows history would know that XP was from a new OS and that it was 2000 with a prettier UI.

This guy writes eweek alright..... for their "Linux Watch" he is a Linux Zealot and is BIASED in the extreme as a consequence, Neowin should have said this when doing this article.
Go to http://www.linux-watch.com and you will find him there busily saying how good (cough cough) GNU Linux is and how bad Windows Vista is.
Are you stupid enough to believe everything that you are told or do you find out for yourself ????

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is either: A) an Idiot, or - more likely - B) highly mis-informed. Windows Vista has Brand New Kernel. Vista has 11 MILLION lines of new code. Vista has a brand new - as in totally re-written - Graphics, Desktop, Networking & Audio Sub-systems or "Stacks". Vista is hardly a "mere upgrade" of Win XP. XP WAS an Upgrade of Win 2000 - in terms of running games & other consumer software applications & drivers - but essentially the Kernel was the same as Win 2000. No, Windows Vista is a brand new Operating System. Microsoft does what it always does - re-leased it before it was ready - they did the SAME thing with Windows XP. I would withhold Judgement on Windows Vista until SP1 is re-leased. If you are running it on fairly decent Hardware I am betting that you will find it a Huge Improvement over Wind XP in every way - well besides the UAC... but that is a different story (i.e. Microsoft went overboard).

I honestly don't understand why I enjoy reading these kinds of comments but i've never seen anyone make this point:-

Microsoft wins eitherway. More-so if you buy XP.

Why? Simply because if you purchase XP now then you'll soon be forking out again for Vista. Maybe not this year but you will be at some point (Mac and Linux devients aside).

I personally use Vista Ultimate on my main PC and Home Premium on my media pc and i've not encountered anything to make me want to go back to XP. I've even started using, nay, liking the sidebar (it now stays on top and has several gadgets) after absolutly hating the sight of it. I must admit the UAC is always the first thing to go and DreamScene made me feel ill but overall I like Vista. It's not the all-singing-all-dancing upgrade most people were hoping for but it's something.

Calling Vista an barely an upgrade in a main news items. Unprofessional we are, Indeed.
At least some of the comments on the article (and some by staff members, even) correct that.
Now lets hope most people read beyond the article itself (they read past the headline, thats a positive sign).

I think before people take what Mr. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols seriously, they need to take a look at some of his past columns. Here are a slight few of his highlights of his journalistic integrity.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2190228,00.asp (the current article)
http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT8288296398.html (an early take on vista)
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS3073255522.html
http://desktoplinux.com/articles/AT9222245906.html
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS7747489300.html
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2298921709.html
http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT7798707143.html
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS9210850677.html

Here is his home at Desktop-Linux:
http://www.linux-watch.com/articles/AT6147270486.html

Additional columns:
http://www.linux.org/news/reporter/00070.html


I am not sure but I think you might consider his opinion slightly bias. I like to think of him as the Dvorak like Window hater archetype (i.e. Dvorak hates the Mac platform, Steven hates Windows). He does have some good opinions but mostly a lot of his columns seem to live in "fantasy land."

Thanks for posting this list. I still remember his crappy "Why Vista will suck" article from March 2006. Let's just say that half of the comments on that article mysteriously disappeared into thin air.

ANova said,
Quite a number of people on this site are also living in a fantasy land on the other side of the mountain.

And where do you live in all this? On a boat in the ocean?

They need to shut the **** up. I'm using Vista over 12 hours a day, 7 days a week since it was in beta. If you have the right hardware and know how to manage Vista, there's no way you'll have any issues with it.

I simply like the way it performs - it's very reliable, does it's job very well, and makes my work very easy. And no, I'm not a fanboy.

whocares78 said,
you NEED to get out more.

I AM going out very often, but with two jobs sometimes I also need to work when I'm outside.

jazzyfan said,
I can't believe Vista is faster on some machines than XP.

Don't worry, it's not. Some people have reality distortion fields, especially the brand zealots.

ANova said,

Don't worry, it's not. Some people have reality distortion fields, especially the brand zealots.


Thanks for calling me a liar.

God i wish you could reach through a computer screen a slap people.

Danrarbc said,

Thanks for calling me a liar.

God i wish you could reach through a computer screen a slap people.

Yes, I am calling you a liar and anyone else who makes such an idiotic remark. When you add so many more lines of code and processes along with the communication between everything it all adds complexity and requires more math computation and memory to hold it. Things don't magically get faster just because they're new. If things are faster it means you had a problem somewhere in XP that was affecting its performance and/or you are running faster hardware. Since Vista uses hardware acceleration to render the desktop that is another way it can give the illusion of running faster because it is utilizing a piece of hardware that wasn't being touched in XP.

I am calling you a liar because I am currently dual booting between the two and Vista is nowhere even near the speed of XP on the same system.

Vista is faster for me than XP was. Maybe it just likes the new hardware I bought. Have no probs with x64 drivers I guess I'm just a good with matching up the right hardware

Azmodan said,
Try it with XP and you might see it faster.

XP x64 is a pain, and the support is lacking. Unless you want him to dump his 64bit move and go back to 32bit for some reason.

Vista is slow, I did not try Vista yet, but I hear it all around. It is slow especially when you try the eye-candy. With linux you can use the eye-candy with just 256Mb of RAM after installing compiz/beryl. 256Mb......Vista won't even install with that memory!!
Want to try? just check out my blog!
myblog

phiberoptik said,
"Vista is slow, I did not try Vista yet, but I hear it all around."

It's slow.. but haven't even tried it...

Need I say more?

I have tried it and yes, it's much slower.

So no, please don't.

phiberoptik said,
"Vista is slow, I did not try Vista yet, but I hear it all around."

It's slow.. but haven't even tried it...

Need I say more?

Well maybe I should have specified a little more clear: I talk to people, I talk to people that use Vista, and I have heard none that is happy with the speed of vista. I am not saying Vista is bad or something, I just mentioned the voices I hear around me.

Well, lately I been downgrading few system for certain customer back to Windows XP.. I remember one my customer "please, remove this crap off my system if not going slam it" I don't question there want if they want xp I give them xp period. I'm not going get into debate why xp or vista is better I could careless if the customer is happy I'm happy.in the long run happy customer bring's me more money later on.

markjensen said,
In Soviet Zombie-land, Vista owns...

Oh, nevermind. I saw your post, and thought I was on slashdot for a second.

:D Heh! There are similar comments on Digg

I have Vista Home on my laptop and Ultimate on Media Center. Nothing really has worked since I upgraded to vista. I have used Vista since Beta 2 and almost year after RTM I'm still waiting MS to fix severe Media Center bugs (for example album art doesn't work, no DVB texts, cable TV not working). Another thing is that nVidia and ATI has had year to make vista drivers but those are still really basic beta drivers.

This is nothing like the rollout of XP. Everyone I know has switched back to XP almost no one I know switched back to ME or 98. You guys that keep attacking these articles are incredibly pathetic. You actually sound like someone has insulted your mother:

franzon said,
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is an IDIOT

What are you, 10 years old?

Quote - halflife28
These people should be 100% ignored and should just STFU.

For the people who do know what they are talking about, everyone should know that any operating system that encourages use of an administrator account is an insecure OS.


Ignored.. really? Is that the way good software is built? By ignoring mass complaints? It seems so because that would explain how Vista turned out.

solardog said,
This is nothing like the rollout of XP. Everyone I know has switched back to XP almost no one I know switched back to ME or 98. You guys that keep attacking these articles are incredibly pathetic. You actually sound like someone has insulted your mother:

QFT

solardog said,
This is nothing like the rollout of XP. Everyone I know has switched back to XP almost no one I know switched back to ME or 98. You guys that keep attacking these articles are incredibly pathetic. You actually sound like someone has insulted your mother:


What are you, 10 years old?


Ignored.. really? Is that the way good software is built? By ignoring mass complaints? It seems so because that would explain how Vista turned out.

The mass complaints are made by people who don't like change, hence, these people should be 100% completely ignored, and are opinions that encourage a stall in R&D.

People complaining that it is too slow should probably stick with XP anyway as they are probably trying to run Vista on an older generation of Pentium 4s and 512 mb of RAM.

Everyone likes to take their stabs at a new operating system from Microsoft as many times as they can get.

I'm assuming that just about everyone who does, doesn't realize how crappy Windows was before XP. Even so, XP is highly insecure out of the box, most of the people complaining about Vista are just typical people who know nothing about computers. They are used to having their default administrator account and doing what they want with it. They don't like it when something prevents them from doing their stupidity.

XP is similar to using the root account on Linux 24/7, heh.

These people should be 100% ignored and should just STFU.

For the people who do know what they are talking about, everyone should know that any operating system that encourages use of an administrator account is an insecure OS.

I think the vast majority of people that like Vista are computer illiterate, it's a very dumbed down os. Either that or they're simply Microsoft lovers. While Vista isn't as bad as ME, it has undeniable flaws and the new "features" are subjective as to their actual benefits. Just because someone doesn't like something does not automatically mean they know nothing. To make such a statement shows your true intelligence.

well we havent had a chance for so long :)

we all know how crappy it was before, XP but reality is NOW, right now, XP is better and why woudl you upgrade, when the next OS comes out they will complain again becasue Vista will be better then wiondwos 7 when 7 is first released. it's about what works, and a lot of vista just doesn't.

it's not just about the security hell you an turn UAC off and log in as admin if you really want, Vista woudl still suck, networkign stack, speed, frame rates etc etc, wierd slow network when music playing thing. i know sp1 will address a lot of the issues but until then it really does have too many issues for a company to roll it out.

i ahev also found quite the opposite, the people i know that know about computers HATE vista the ones i know that have no clue LOVE it, but thats just who i know.

ANova said,
I think the vast majority of people that like Vista are computer illiterate, it's a very dumbed down os. Either that or they're simply Microsoft lovers. While Vista isn't as bad as ME, it has undeniable flaws and the new "features" are subjective as to their actual benefits. Just because someone doesn't like something does not automatically mean they know nothing. To make such a statement shows your true intelligence.

I wouldn't exactly say it is a dumbed down OS. It's much like a breath of fresh air for the series.

For one thing, gone with the trash GDI+ system which I've always hated, time to move on and use hardware acceleration for rendering the desktop. Mac OS X debuted with this technology, now 6 years later Windows finally has it.

The stutter-less audio and video playback works very well as it was advertised.

Also, there are numerous security features for the paranoid, too many to list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_...o_Windows_Vista

halflife28 said,
I wouldn't exactly say it is a dumbed down OS. It's much like a breath of fresh air for the series.

For one thing, gone with the trash GDI+ system which I've always hated, time to move on and use hardware acceleration for rendering the desktop. Mac OS X debuted with this technology, now 6 years later Windows finally has it.

The stutter-less audio and video playback works very well as it was advertised.

Also, there are numerous security features for the paranoid, too many to list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_...o_Windows_Vista

Compared to any other os that I can think of, yes, it is most certainly dumbed down; through the layout, the security, the preset functions, etc.

As far as the others, a hardware accelerated desktop is nice but Vista's implementation is quite frankly trash. It does little to take advantage of the fact other than useless little windows animations and glass and it is very inefficient and slow when compared to the OSX and especially Beryl/Compiz implementations. GDI is limiting but it's much much faster and I for one don't have a problem with it, especially since you can make XP look nice regardless.

I never had and still do not have problems with the audio or video in XP and I question why it was even changed to begin with. In fact video is much slower and now stutters in Vista for me, I never had that in XP. Yes, I'm up to date with ATI drivers.

The security features are badly implemented and overly extreme, to the point of being a nuisance.

Yes UAC needs a kick in the ass and to have a system where developers can work with so it's easier to shut it up. The performance could also use some fine tuning and stop the random HD thrashing. The thing that bugs me the most is the driver support. I realize my audigy platinum is far from new and lost a lot of features, but when I saw that even the x-fi is in the same boat, I didn't feel so bad about it; We can share our self pity. Not to mention SLI (should be called pc gaming is for suckers, I'm never buying in) and my LaserJet 1012 that will not be getting any drivers so its impossible to share with XP. I'm also getting blue screens which I never had on XP since I purchased my system a few months before the upgrade.

There are issues, I'm still using it and don't feel compelled to write another angry review of it...yet.

SP1 can only tackle so much, the rest is in the hands of hardware manufacturers.

I'm running Vista on 2 PCs now... my 3 year old desktop and my new Dell laptop, both with 1Gb RAM. As regards the new laptop, i have no idea how it would have performed with XP installed since it came pre-installed with Vista. But on the 3 year old PC I reallly can say a lot ... well believe it or not it's running smoother than XP! After reading your bashing comments you would get the idea that it would just drag!

OK so you might ask why does it perform worse on benchmarks ? Well I guess all the bells and whistles it has will defenitely make a hit on performance. But Vista has better caching algorithms than XP (which still need some tweaking on resuming from hibernate/sleep). 1GB RAM on my XP was not being exploited well and 2Gb would have been a waste. Vista knows how to make good use of memory and the more you give it the more it will use as cache. That is why Vista feels smoother. Obviously benchmarking can eliminate the caching effect in some instances.

corven22 said,
1GB RAM on my XP was not being exploited well and 2Gb would have been a waste. Vista knows how to make good use of memory and the more you give it the more it will use as cache.

To me, RAM is a major bottle-neck of Vista. I had a laptop running 512MB RAM. With XP and its almost-to-none program caching, it runs fine. With Vista and its new, advanced caching, it constantly swapping between page file and RAM because Vista needed more RAM to cache all it wants. It eats up 300+MB RAM at start up and left little to programs. After I upgraded it to 1GB, everything is back to the way it should, no more excessive HDD access due to page file and RAM swapping; no more slowness for programs to load and etc... It only uses 500-600MB RAM at startup.

Vista knows how to use RAM properly for computers that have those RAMs. For computers that don't, Vista is just eating too much of it and leave little for something else.

I'm not really into benchmarks, obviously we can't compare a new technology with its 5-6 years old predecessor. If I run Win95 on my computer now, the OS would boot within 10 secs after the boot screen... (I guess)

I'm sure you are right that Vista runs slow on 512Mb RAM. This is why Microsoft developed Readyboost for older machines. Memory is cheap nowadays so I don't think that's an issue. We'll soon be talking of 16Gb RAM in two, 3 years time, so how will Windows XP perform on such machines ? Plus... Windows XP with Windows Desktop Search installed and some other fluffly stuff will not perform that well with 512Mb RAM either. I think for Vista 1Gb is a good starting point. I'm curious to know how it would handle 2Gb. All I know is that the performace monitors included in Vista rock!

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is an IDIOT

On my very old PC, Windows Vista Home Premium runs faster than XP. I've only 768MB of RAM and 1.7Ghz CPU, Geforce 6200 256MB AGP ( aero enabled! ) .
If Vista runs very very well on my old PC, why on your modern PCs should not work??? I'm shocked, I can't believe your better machines can't handle Vista!
This my old PC has been automatically recognized by Vista, I didn't installed any drivers because everything has been fully recognized with built-in drivers and with drivers that Windows Update downloaded and installed automatically.
All applications I used on XP, still work on Vista or work with a free update I downloaded from the official web site. No problems, No crashes. I'm very happy with Vista since the day zero (30 January, when I received my original copy of Vista)
There is an huge list of Windows Vista compatible applications and hardware (it's not completed):
http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/Wind...patibility_List
http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/Wind...patibility_List

franzon said,
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is an IDIOT

Sorry, I can't quite read what you've written there. Could you increase the font size?

franzon said,
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is an IDIOT

I agree.

These *******s don't understand that most of the Vista problems are mostly because of drivers and a small number of incompatible software.

I'm a power user (programmer) and Vista works fine for all my needs (gaming/music/movies/etc..), so all these whiners are just looking to make headlines.

These idiots don't even bother having a point to support their argument (in this instance, he didn't explain why he thinks this person is an idiot?). Not to mention about big font and cap for himself.

Wow, the admin is fast to take down the post after this one. I was gonna suggest a "spam" function to alert admin to consider erasing the post. GJ admins.

Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe Socket am2. Nvidia nforce 590 sli amd. Realtek rtl8187 wireless adapter. Have not had problems with anything on the system. Works flawlesly with the x64 vista rtm.

bull****. Flawlessly my ASS.

Caleb said,

I agree.

These *******s don't understand that most of the Vista problems are mostly because of drivers and a small number of incompatible software.

I'm a power user (programmer) and Vista works fine for all my needs (gaming/music/movies/etc..), so all these whiners are just looking to make headlines.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm an Idiot too...!!!... ....
-- Damn...! ...may be I will need to be a power user ( programmer ) to use the Vista...just to fix it... -- :suspicious:

is aero actually working?? not just enabled, if so how did you get it working, everythign i read, says you need DX10 compatible hardware for that?

whocares78 said,
is aero actually working?? not just enabled, if so how did you get it working, everythign i read, says you need DX10 compatible hardware for that?

****, on my old ass Athlon 3000 with 1.5 gigs RAM and a ATI 9600 All-in-Wonder it works fine....and that was with the RC builds.

Mostly, I think that Microsoft finally realized that they were cutting off an old revenue stream before allowing a new one to establish itself. Stupidly, they left little time after the Vista release before discontinuing XP. After all, how long was Windows 98SE available after XP was released. Shouldn't you allow time for people to upgrade to new hardware that will support this glorious new OS and also allow time for manufacturers to wrap their collective heads around what it takes to develop drivers that actually work?

The previous OS should be available for two years after release of a new OS.

It's a fairly simple idea. Not all of us are superly successful VP's or kids with doting parents that will give us an allowance to upgrade every 6 months. In the real world, it's a bit longer, maybe 4-6 years. After all, despite $400 computers, it still takes about $1200 on an upgrade to have it be an effective upgrade because you'll need more than the default memory, some new peripherals, and software upgrades to fill in for all the stuff that gets broke.

Love their last comment:

And I'm not talking motherboards, graphic cards or some ancient PCI card. I have an HP ScanJet 6250C USB scanner that works perfectly with Windows XP and isn't recognized by Vista. I went to HPs site and they regretted to inform me that this hardware would not be supported under Vista. They recommended that I purchase a new scanner.

Ahhhhhh. There's the real rub. I call that pure B.S.

So I was a good consumer. I went out and bought an all-in-one device from HP that faxes, scans, copies and prints. Everytime I get in the shower I scrub and scrub but I can't get the stink of Vista and HP off my skin.

And then he'd go straight out and buys a new HP...

Yeah I have a similar problem with HP. They aren't releasing drivers for my Laserjet 1012 so I can't share it with XP.

Here is a canned response I got from HP:

Barry, we definitely understand your concern and urgency. We the HP technical support was, is and always will be totally dedicated towards customer service and we strive towards your satisfaction. Unfortunately, at present there are no printer drivers for the Microsoft Windows Vista O/s.

HP is working to ensure the best user experience for HP Inkjet and LaserJet printers connected to PCs running Microsoft's new operating system, Windows Vista. HP expects to complete the certification process for applicable drivers by July 2007. Drivers will be posted as they are completed on the Web page given below:

http://www.hp.com/support/lj1012

Notice that the link they gave doesn't work and there still has not been any drivers. I still haven't used up the original toner...

ambiance said,
Yeah I have a similar problem with HP. They aren't releasing drivers for my Laserjet 1012 so I can't share it with XP.

Here is a canned response I got from HP:

Barry, we definitely understand your concern and urgency. We the HP technical support was, is and always will be totally dedicated towards customer service and we strive towards your satisfaction. Unfortunately, at present there are no printer drivers for the Microsoft Windows Vista O/s.

HP is working to ensure the best user experience for HP Inkjet and LaserJet printers connected to PCs running Microsoft's new operating system, Windows Vista. HP expects to complete the certification process for applicable drivers by July 2007. Drivers will be posted as they are completed on the Web page given below:

http://www.hp.com/support/lj1012

Notice that the link they gave doesn't work and there still has not been any drivers. I still haven't used up the original toner...

Just curious did you try the XP drivers in Vista?

ambiance said,
Yeah I have a similar problem with HP. They aren't releasing drivers for my Laserjet 1012 so I can't share it with XP.

Here is a canned response I got from HP:

Barry, we definitely understand your concern and urgency. We the HP technical support was, is and always will be totally dedicated towards customer service and we strive towards your satisfaction. Unfortunately, at present there are no printer drivers for the Microsoft Windows Vista O/s.

HP is working to ensure the best user experience for HP Inkjet and LaserJet printers connected to PCs running Microsoft's new operating system, Windows Vista. HP expects to complete the certification process for applicable drivers by July 2007. Drivers will be posted as they are completed on the Web page given below:

http://www.hp.com/support/lj1012

Notice that the link they gave doesn't work and there still has not been any drivers. I still haven't used up the original toner...

So, who gets the blame for this? HP or MS? Who's job is it to make sure your printer/scanner works with the OS? MS aside from giving you a generic driver, should they also make a special driver for every HP product out there before they release a new OS? You see the irony in this? MS changed the driver model for the better with Vista, which helps with performence and stability. But this comes at the cost of compatibility. You will always have this tradeoff to make. It's the massive lengths MS goes to to keep everything from 6years ago working on a new OS that drags that OS down. But if they cut that compatibility, then you get people, many of which have posted here about this article, bitching at how ****ty Vista is.

You have to stand back and understand how things work before you jump in and moan about things. First of you bitch that it's not secure. MS makes core changes to make it secure, and not just UAC mind you, but other core kernel and subsystem changes. This has the side effect of screwing with compatibility. So, what do you want? MS to fix the problems in windows or to keep compatibility with older apps/hardware? Because, and this is a fact, you can't have both.

Wonder why most people voted that they don't like Vista (see the previous "professional opinion" article poll" ) versus those who defend it.

Vista bashing? Yes. It's expensive, sucks a lot of resources, safer? do you call something that thinks that you're stupid safer? and it's entirely a tool to brag other people about how "nice" your OS GUI is. (I fail to see other uses, except maybe DirectX 10).

Keep XP? Yes. It's stable, lots of driver support. Why would I need to pay +500$ for something that I don't need? Just to show people that I can have expensive OS and that my PC meet the requirements of it?

I've got a 8800GTS, AMD FX-62 with 4GB DDR2 @ 800Mhz, and it doesn't likes it. (Running something, anything, produces a TOTAL FREEZE after a while) I've explained many, many times that it's not a defective hardware issue, it's not a setting; but it's more probably that the people at ASUS haven't made a native Vista driver yet for the M2N32-SLI. (They claim that the driver works, it's labelled for Windows Vista x64, but it doesn't)

So I've reverted back to Windows XP x64, and it hasn't even froze ONCE. ASUS nor Microsoft couldn't give me a reasonable explanation of why that happened.

Vista effects? Get Linux. Freeware Windows XP tools can get some of the job done.

And don't give me that junk that Vista is faster than XP. Give me 1 Benchmark that proves otherwise, and I'll throw you 20 back.

Technological blunder? Don't think so, but potentially it could be. Upgrading? Hell no. Probably after SP1 gets out. And if it doesn't satisfies me, SP2. or Windows 7.

And those bragging that it's the same thing that happened with XP, I've got the Whistler CD back home, and I switched to XP the first day it came out. I regret buying that Vista copy. Anyone wants a free CD key?

Sadly, Azmodan, people can be very biased, quick to insult and blind to reality, especially on a pro Microsoft/windows site.

Vista is stable for me too - never encountered any major problems and all my drivers were available when it was released (most were shipped within Windows itself!). ALL my games and software work on it too!

I'm running Home Premium on my eMachines laptop with a 2.6Ghz Celeron and 512MB RAM - it's 3 years old and still runs it like a charm!

SP1 will feature a collection of previously-released fixes, an update to the Kernal, changes to the way Kernal Patch Guard behaves and changes to the Instant Search feature - thats about it!! Anyone who thinks that SP1 is going to dramatically alter the Vista experience needs a reality check: It's still Windows Vista, and nothing major is changing from a user experience viewpoint.

http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/vista_sp1.asp

Oh my god this is insane!!!!!! I wrote a comment on eWeek's site about Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols articla and it got deleted. Apparently he's only letting the negative comments in. GRRRR I'm smelling something here... is he emplyed by google or the mac boys ? Man I'm really irritated!! I spent 2 minutes commenting about his article, explaining what problems i'm encountering with Vista instead of bashing Vista outrightly just to find that my comment was first accepted, then disappeared after an hour. Anyone else experienced the same thing ?

Well I'm sorry, I'm very satisfied with Vista, so is my brother (and we got two very different systems [generations]). It's a matter of drivers, as soon as you get good drivers for your hardware Vista is paradise (and I was lucky, I had good working drivers from the beginning on). Now, maybe Microsoft should ship a bit of Brain 1.1 together with Vista, for those who keep saying stuff that's not true just because they don't get how it's supposed to work. I mean, they even compain about the excellent new start menu... it's sooo hard to type 3 letters in order to start a program quickly...

My computer with Windows Vista hasn't crashed once, which is more than I could say about Windows XP some times. These "experts" need to lay down the pipe and stop bashing Windows Vista just because they can.

At last!! someone remembers the past! I hate it when people talk about vista, but forget how XP was when it was released

MY vista pc have been very stable. No problems except for the wmp11 database getting corrupted once (due to a vista codec pack wich i promptly uninstalled)

ITS not a huge jump over xp but its all the small things that I like over xp. Like having the search bar in the start menu or how much better the dual core support is.

I can switch things between the two cores without the program crashing on vista. On xp they would randomly crash when I did that.

See its the small things that all equal up for me on vista.

majortom1981 said,
MY vista pc have been very stable. No problems except for the wmp11 database getting corrupted once (due to a vista codec pack wich i promptly uninstalled)

ITS not a huge jump over xp but its all the small things that I like over xp. Like having the search bar in the start menu or how much better the dual core support is.

I can switch things between the two cores without the program crashing on vista. On xp they would randomly crash when I did that.

See its the small things that all equal up for me on vista.

Vista is more stable for me too

Me too.

I personally think a lot of the time people do not know how to configure their system. They find a driver on the Internet and try using it, and it is for a different chipset but instead of trying to listen to the warnings they try forcing in because they know what they are doing.

In all the years I've been working with computers, one thing always springs to mind.

Do not listen to everything you hear, a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.

<snipped - that has nothing to do with the article>

My, people have such short memory, unbelievable.

W 98 was slower on the same hardware compared to W 98.

W ME was slower (and had compatibility problems) compared to W98. OK ME had it's own issues too.

W XP was definitely slower and required more hardware than any of the above.

W Vista is slower on the same hardware than W XP was.

Yet, people are all very surprised of this. Of course - the same thing happens with Apple. They don't just make you upgrade hardware for performance, but they actually now for th 2nd time, replaced the whole hardware platform and rendered stuff pretty much incompatible with previous generations.

Yet people are surprised of this. Every Windows release we read stuff like this. EVERY one. Get over it, would you?

I am going to make a bold prediction here:

When Windows 7 gets released - people are going to complain...

You're right my friend, I remember, with XP was the same thing... now! Nobody wants to leave XP. Of course Vista need some work but I think that Vista is in a better position compare with XP when it was released.

When will people realise that this is just what happens with new technologies, and Vista is far from a failure?

I was an early adopter with Windows XP, and I had one hell of a time. Driver support was awful, program support was awful, and I wanted my Windows 98 back. Everyone around me with Windows 98 was laughing at me, telling me how crap Windows XP was.

However, time passed, and now everyone uses Windows XP, driver support is fantastic, and program support is fantastic.

The same thing will happen with Vista, although for me driver and program support has been fantastic. (I accept some people may have had a few problems, but lets not kid ourselves here, the Windows XP launch was far far worse in this area)

Every OS MS will make from now to eternity will get insulted at launch, everyone won't need it, they are happy with the older version yada yada yada, yet everyone will upgrade in the end and will get ready to insult the next MS OS at launch.

It's the way of the world

It's hard to draw conclusions from 98 vs XP though, because 98 was a horrible 16/32-bit hybrid OS that was pretty crash prone even after Windows 98 SE, not to mention all the other stupidities coming from the hybrid architecture itself. Vista is instead rather an evolutionary release of the NT kernel. Yes, it has improved security in the form of UAC among other things, and many hate that. Yes, it has a modified (I'll use "modified" because whether it's improved is subjective) audio stack, which makes EAX and such direct hardware communications fail without patchworks and many hate that. Yes, it has a modified network stack that suffers from weird design decisions involving playing multimedia, and many hate that. And so it goes.

I'm not saying Vista is bad, just that it improves in some areas, and comes short in others, due to design decisions, not simple bugs that will fixed in service packs, or problems that will be solved by new drivers.

So XP vs Vista is clearly another case than 98 vs XP to me, where the latter were based on two entirely different kernel branches. Since Vista adoption is still very slow, future still has a lot to say on whether it'll be a successful OS or not. Until then we can just speculate, but I personally think it'll at least have more hurdles in meeting a good adoption "in time".

I completely agree with John. Everybody always complains at change.

Microsoft have a nearly impossible task when they write an operating system, it comes down to one simple equation no to computers are the same, no to users at the same!

They also have to consider time in development, and eventually they need to start recouping the money they are spending that means every operating system has to be released some time in order to pay the further development.

Every person that does wait on service Pack 1 should thank every person that purchases the operating system before that time because they basically funded service Pack 1. And so it should be that way Microsoft are there to make money.

I agree with John. I'm also an early adopter with Windows since Win98. I noted to myself that Vista was the actual OS that doesn't crash that much in betas and interm builds as the other, let's say, XP RC1. I do admit that Vista is a bulky OS for a computer to run, but consider just how many changes and new architectures it has, I would bare the slowness of the 1 second per action/command and heck, it's not like my computer is low-end.

For low-end computers, they should just stick with WinXP (and hey, I know no one wants WinME for good reason). Ever heard of anyone complaining how bulky WinXP was compare to Win2k and Win98? I'm sure you do when XP just have its SP1 out of the door. They're complaining because they have computers that are old and should not be considered upgrading at the first place. Now the hardware is so powerful and XP is really fast (because of the hardware) and this is the reason why the adoption of XP become so much faster.

enough from me, if you want another laugh click Read more to enjoy yet another "expert" opinion on Vista.

Strongly agree as I was laughing on how this article got posted on eWeek anyways. Vista is an "upgrade"? Come on... I see XP as a OS with skinning, programs merged from Win2k and Win98, and new programs/functionality. But I don't see any major technological changes here. Vista on the other-hand, it has a new network stack, audio stack, and the UAC. The Aero Glass is something extra to me but it's really amazing. If you take XP and to draw every pixel on the screen (ie: play movie. programs in XP used overlay, they still use overlay in Vista but Vista's Aero "paste" them on the screen buffer), you'll find XP draw very very slowly. It's just to show how much tweak MS did to Aero.

stevember said,
I completely agree with John. Everybody always complains at change.

1. Not everyone wants to upgrade their hardware and buy extra RAM to run something marginally improved over what they have already.

2. The vast majority of Windows users are not tech-savvy people, they've still barely learned how to deal with XP's quirks, Vista is terrifying to them with all its new complexity.

3. Vista simply does not offer anything that great compared to XP for most people. Remember, maybe you're a geek, but most people don't like wasting time messing with their PCs, they don't even want to know how it works as long as it works.

4. Businesses have much more to consider than getting the latest version of an OS just because it's new. Vista doesn't offer businesses anything significantly improved over XP, and Vista actually is more difficult to integrate into existing Windows networks as it is right now.

5. For businesses, it is more cost-effective and efficient to run XP virtual machines on VMWare blade servers, rather than "upgrade" to Vista. Virtualizing XP eliminates most of the problems it has: security, management, stability. Users can destroy their XP VM, then just load a new one and their desktop and all their apps are back in pristine form. Would you care to explain to your boss why they should use Vista instead of that?

People aren't fighting change, they're going for alternatives to Vista, or sticking with XP. Perhaps if Vista wasn't such a bloated, unstable, mess with hidden killswitches and DRM, it would have been more successful.

I was willing to agree with most of your points until you tossed out your last line.

If Vista wasn't such a bloated, unstable, mess with hidden killswitches and DRM??? What are you talking about? That line, as with most of your post is highly subjective. And while maybe you had some stability issues quite a few others haven't. And if the stability problems are related to one of your installed 3rd party drivers how is that a Vista problem?

And bloated? I think people have taken that and turned it into something it wasn't originally. People look at file size and how much space Vista takes up and call it bloated, totally forgetting the fact that the DVD size is so big due to all the drivers they give you in there. Putting it down in a list, Vista adds some features but most of the changes are to the new bits of the core OS that people never see. The original meaning behind bloat is something that's packed with stuff that no one uses. But many of the new features in Vista are used by those who like the OS and so on.

And adding support for DRM is what you have to do if you want to be able to support hd-dvd and bluray playback. You do know that none of that support or code starts up or stops you from doing all the media related stuff you can do on XP right? The only people who have to even think about the DRM support are those who have DRM'd media video or audio files. But those are bad right? So we stay away from them anyways, right?

Lots of people run Vista on 1GB of ram, and it'll run just fine, most new PCs if not all have 1GB min. People started to upgrade to 1GB halfway through running XP, and you know why? Because those nice new "bloated" video games need as much RAM as you can toss at them. But not everyone wants to upgrade and buy new CHEAP RAM to play a marginally improved video game do they?

At the end of the day, all the problems Vista is going through are the exact same ones Win2k and WinXP both faced in their start. Driver support is slow or poor, and apps aren't good enough. And relative to what you had before, people needed to upgrade their hardware and get more RAM. Win2k would run pretty well with 128MB of RAM, but how many would run XP with that much? Hell I ran it with 256MB and it was never that great performence wise so I upgrade to 512MB. Which is fine for minor work, but fire up a program like Photoshop or anything else that needs ram and even that's not enough. Upgrading RAM with a new Windows OS release is nothing new. The only thing that's changed is the memory sizes making things sound more extreme than they actually are.

What _I_ find funny is that almost all items on NeoWin are very neutral, it's "he says, she says" but as of late these Vista items always have some smart ass editorial comment dismissing the entire thing.

You either find it worth posting and let it stand on its own (you can always add another item pointing to an opposite opinion) or you just don't post it. This way it sounds as if someone really can't stand the criticism of their favorite OS.

I agree, it sounded pretty interesting until I came to that comment, then it just became something from The Register... (that somehow Neowinians often look down on for their biased editorials)

XP *was* quickly very successful because it was the first consumer 32-bit OS, and just because it's "common" for users to wait to at least SP1, doesn't mean he's wrong or stupid, just that he's correct although maybe stating the obvious. What I think will be most interesting is if SP1 will solve these start up problems, because I'm far from sure of that. We still haven't even started planning for it at our office here, and yes, we're fully aware that SP1 is coming soon.

I think I cleared up a few misconceptions in my lead up to his article. These sorts of posts are becoming more common and I feel the only way to educate people on why they think that way is to make sure the reasoning and common sense is voiced.

Unless the guy is a complete moron he should of come to the same conclusion I did, XP was slated in the same way in it's first year as every other OS before it (possibly not 98SE though!).

We syndicate a lot from the tech community and unfortunately people aren't writing glowing reviews of Vista yet and additional to that the problems with patches over the past few weeks are news worthy in itself. Just like the newer story above this one on Windows Update failure after XP CD repair.

Thanks for your opinion though.

Neobond said,
Unless the guy is a complete moron

He is. He posts nothing but bull**** about anything MS. If I have time I can dig up a list of crap he wrote that screams out WTF.

Oh and let's not forget the level of censorship in a world of speakers for "free" software, i.e. FSF's BadVista.

daniel_rh said,
What Microsoft needs is a more intelligent UAC and optimize the use of memory in low end computers.

I agree completely. Most of the time, I don't have to deal with UAC, it seems that very little I do triggers the UAC. But I can see( and have with my girl's machine) just how annoying the UAC on a non-updated vista install can be. And optimized memory usage would be great regardless.

Also, how is offering a choice the sign that vista's dead? I mean, that's just hoping on the hate bandwagon right there.

Plus, like all windows OS, after the first SP, it will be better. I mean, the push most of the major fixes out as is, but the SP has the fixes that have been in development since release.

And to the guy who can't find his shift key and claims to work a service desk: Endures bitch.

It’s hard to say really so many people make news articles about Vista I think people should just make up their own minds.
I recall when XP was launched I looked at the big green start button and thought “yuk” now its just normal back in those early days XP was also going to slow down some peoples existing systems unless they upgrade.

Now with Vista it’s the same thing all over again I know some Asus laptops come with downgrade rights to XP.

Where I work all the PC’s are still using XP or 2K as they don’t have the budget for good hardware.

Me personally I’ll be purchasing Vista OEM when I build my next system for now I’ll stick with XP.

Everyone keeps saying that Vista is like XP was before SP1.Well for sh!ts and giggles I loaded XP no service packs on a computer that was at the time deemed barely XP ready,then loaded most apps I run.The computer I am running Vista on has the top requirements and the Xp no service pack load has the bare minimum requirements for XP at the time and the XP machine runs 1000x better same apps.Vista is defiantly not like when XP was first released,I think its going to need allot of work just to become even with XP no sp's.I'm hoping SP1 will iron some of the kinks cause I want to like it but its pretty hard at this point.

^ I don't buy that for a minute! I recently had to reformat a PC with XP and I only had an XP+SP1 CD. Before I had even finished installing updates there was random spyware installing it self all over the show. In fact, XP Pre SP2 is terrible. Windows Vista is easily as stable/secure as XP with XP2.

dw2003 said,
^ I don't buy that for a minute! I recently had to reformat a PC with XP and I only had an XP+SP1 CD. Before I had even finished installing updates there was random spyware installing it self all over the show. In fact, XP Pre SP2 is terrible. Windows Vista is easily as stable/secure as XP with XP2.

Please, what a load of bull. My current system is loaded with XP Pro SP1 with no firewall and no antivirus of any kind as it has been for the last 3 years! I have not had a single, count em, single virus, spyware, malware or other problem since I stopped using IE and the computer runs as good as the day I put it together. IE is most certainly insecure in XP SP1 at default settings but disable activex and use another browser and you never have to worry about another virus again, especially with Opera.

Btw, I also have Vista installed as a dual boot and when I go from using Vista to XP the latter feels like it's running on a computer twice as fast.

ANova said,

Please, what a load of bull. My current system is loaded with XP Pro SP1 with no firewall and no antivirus of any kind as it has been for the last 3 years! I have not had a single, count em, single virus, spyware, malware or other problem since I stopped using IE and the computer runs as good as the day I put it together.

Then you must have something upstream that is protecting you, perhaps you have a router with a built-in (and automatically enabled) firewall, or your ISP does some blocking as there is NO WAY IN HELL that you can run unprotected XP SP1 with a direct connection without getting hit by something. It doesn't matter if you use IE or not.

dw2003's tale of woe is extremely common. The trick is to have the latest SP on CD / Flash drive (and have the ISO created by c't Offline Update) and reinstall the OS without the network cable being plugged in, and only plug it in once you've patched as much as possible offline.

mrbester said,
Then you must have something upstream that is protecting you, perhaps you have a router with a built-in (and automatically enabled) firewall, or your ISP does some blocking as there is NO WAY IN HELL that you can run unprotected XP SP1 with a direct connection without getting hit by something. It doesn't matter if you use IE or not.

dw2003's tale of woe is extremely common. The trick is to have the latest SP on CD / Flash drive (and have the ISO created by c't Offline Update) and reinstall the OS without the network cable being plugged in, and only plug it in once you've patched as much as possible offline.

Viruses don't sit there waiting to attack computers the moment you hook them up to the internet. That's nonsense. They need means of communication and transferal. You can get infected one of four ways, when using an insecure browser to view a compromised website, when someone else specifically knows of your computer's existance and its subsequent ip address, when you install a program sent via email or use an insecure email client or when you install an infected program yourself. No ifs, ands or butts about it.

Don't believe everything you hear, it's just fear mongering.