Neowin.net

Who is this guy and why do I give a rat's ass what OS he uses? Seriously, folks. Why do any of us?

So his faxmodem doesn't have drivers yet. OOOOOOOH!!!! Heavens to mergatroid. STOP THE PRESSES!!

Chris, just use XP. There's not much difference between the two and XP does what you need now. No one's forcing you to move to Vista as a bleeding edge first adopter (except your e-penis issues I suppose) .

Grow a pair, grow up, use what works, STFU you whiney, irrelevant blogging ponce.

I totally agree. Who is this guy anyway? His techtv show SUCKED

Now here are some opinions I'd like to read about! we need more of yours (being serious)

VISTA is BLEEDING edge.... You couldn'yt put it any better. Microsoft delivered BLEEDING EDGE software, and that is NOT what should have been RTM.

I'm with Chris and when SP1 is delivered I'll give it another try. I don't care who you are, if your a power user you HAVE problems of some sort due to the fact that VISTA either crashes, won't run your programs, slow network response times, you have to turn off UAC becuse that MAC commericial is absolutly true, and more.

I'm not paying Retail Ultimate priceing for software that is others have labled as BLEEDING EDGE.

You guys obviously haven't been on the Internet very long, have you?

And those 3rd party "issues" are because of the changes in Vista. Everyone wants to blame H/W vendors for the short commings of Vista. I say Microsoft is to blame for that. Longhorn had potential. Vista at this point does not. Maybe a SP will fix the majority of issues but then again it could get worse.

So if I'm hearing right, Microsoft should not try to make the Operating System more stable by changing it's drivers inner workings because the side effect is older hardware fails to work anymore? I disagree.

Windows XP is based on technology years dated; Vista has been built on newer technology which will require upgrading ones software/hardware to get into the new times. I know Microsoft tried as much as it could to ensure that Vista would be backward compat. but in the end it's up to the third party to decide if developing newer drivers for it's older hardware is good for their business. This is the reality of upgrading.

Now what has made Vista more stable? the fact that Vista has Built-in DRM??? NO the fact of the matter is.. is that Vista is Less stable then XP IMO.. Microsoft is the one who wanted to make the RIAA, MPAA Happy and take User CTRL away from the Users own system that the user owns.

I like how PPL say Vista was built on newer technology.. I'm sorry to say but Vista was NOT built on newer technology.. Maybe newer Code but how can you call Code a newer technology???

It's simple. They moved many driver models out of the kernel, and put them into userland. Now, Instead of having 90% of your video driver live in a place where, if it crashes, it can take down your entire system, Significantly less of it is there. The only component that has to live in the kernel is the part that talks directly to the hardware. The rest, the Direct3d driver, for example, can happily exist in userland, where if it crashes, the only thing you get is a 2 second screen flicker while it restarts. In XP, this would BSOD you.

Moving things from the kernel makes the overall system more stable. To be honest, I haven't had the final build of Vista BSOD on me even once so far.

And yes, Vista is built on newer technology. The entire desktop is 3d accelerated, that's something that XP didn't do, and Microsoft had to build from the ground up. The network stack was redone to incorporate advances such as ipv6, vastly superior wireless support, and smb2.0. Readyboost is a new technology. Sure, people have put paging files on flash disks before, but when has the OS specifically decided what is "best" to page to flash based on the randomness of the read/write order? Again, a new technology. I don't think these comments can be long enough to go into detail on all the new stuff.

You're just not looking at the big picture. Vista has a LOT of new stuff to offer. Have you been blind the to many recent articles on the DRM, and how it doesn't even impact you unless you want it to? Oh my god! They added a whole one new DRM piece to the OS that exists in every Blu-Ray/HD-DVD player! We're all doomed.

Last edited by MioTheGreat on 28 Feb 2007 - 15:55

Paranoid people like you probably rip DRM out of stuff and play it that way anyway. I don't know what all the hype is, but unless you have something that uses DRM, it shouldn't matter to you anyway.

Or, to put it in a language you can understand, "Either you can play it 'crippled' or not at all".

The point he is making as a "Featured Community Leader" is that he is representing a community of Windows Enthusiasts and finds himself in a difficult position of not being able to fully endorse Windows Vista like he might do for Windows XP.

Not a good position to be in, but he defends his points, and even if they are 3rd party issues, we didn't have these sorts of problems when XP released, far from it in fact. Most 2K drivers worked without problems on XP while Vista is very different and hardware vendors simply haven't latched on and delivered.

Obviously you if you expended energy to read the article and make a reply.

Good. He's not missing out on much.

Expressing your opinion does NOT make you an immature whiner. He doesn't like Vista - good for him. Leave him be.

I can. The transition for clients wasn't from 2000 to XP, it was from Windows 98SE/Millennium to XP, a significant transition. Microsoft always maintained that 2K was not a client OS (even though I chose to use it anyway) and not supported as such, unlike XP.

Chris is talking for the average Joe, non tech-savvy people. When you get people stepping up to Vista without any sort of trouble-shooting experience they will find quite a few of their devices not working as a result, the advice here really is simply, wait!

But on that same note, despite consumers moving from the 9X core to the NT/XP core, when XP came out, 2000 had been out for a few years. And given the similarities between the two, there were already drivers and software for 2000 that worked fine in XP. That's not the case in Vista since it is different than any release of Windows so far, there isn't some non-consumer focused version that's been out for years that's similar and gotten software updated for it. So really, it's not a fair comparison to make.

I will make a comparison, Win3.11 to Windows 95. That upgrade broke less apps. and was more stable than what XP to Vista offers. It was also a more significant code change than XP to Vista (on a % basis).

It broke less apps because the core was still the same with some slight modifications. The 32bit compnents just thunked down to the 16bit counterparts.

Last edited by MrCobra on 28 Feb 2007 - 16:04

Actually, Windows 2000 is a client operating system, just that Microsoft never marketed it as a desktop consumer operating system. I remember at the launch in February 2000, Gates said, a consumer focused version (ME) would be released later in the year.

I have to say, its combination of both Vista and third party developer issues that are holding back most persons from upgrading. For me right now, we are sticking with XP at work until Sage is fully compatible with Vista. I'll gladly run it at home.

There are many changes in Vista from XP. However most of them are behind the scenes so end-users wouldn't know the difference. One easy change you could see right away is the new sound system in Vista. Another is how the OS treats individual windows. If the application fails the applications window doesn't become "burned" on the desktop effecting the entire OS, but rather just changes it's appearance and still allows you to move it out of the way.



Microsoft did all it could to help third parties develop drivers... what would you have done differently? Hold the OS longer while third parties develop drivers? Microsoft has been putting out CTPs for almost a year before Vista released with it's driver system baked. And for the larger partnerships Microsoft has worked one-on-one to help them develop their drivers for the new technology in Vista.

I agree! Read "The Wave" by Todd Strasser (or at least try to grab a detailed description of that book). You'll be surprised at the parallels we're seeing today with Vista "fans."

How about not charging $18000 to have a driver "Windows Certified" (and that's every single driver, and every updated driver) and then making it so that Vista doesn't allow the use of non-certified drivers?

Non-certified kernel mode drivers ONLY not work in their 64-bit environment. And where do you get your $18000 fine? I've never seen a price put up at Microsoft so I'm curious to know where you get your information.

Last edited by parithon on 02 Mar 2007 - 00:57

[quote=parithon said,#8.4]
How about not charging $18000 to have a driver "Windows Certified" (and that's every single driver, and every updated driver) and then making it so that Vista doesn't allow the use of non-certified drivers?[/quote]

Non-certified kernel mode drivers ONLY not work in their 64-bit environment. And where do you get your $18000 fine? I've never seen a price put up at Microsoft so I'm curious to know where you get your information.[/quote]

Of course it's not up on their site... I got the info from someone I know who's written software and tried to get it "certified" by Microsoft. Needless to say, he didn't spring for it after he was told the price.

The defense is because he blames Microsoft for not ensuring third-party drivers work in Vista. I also find it interesting that he assumes that the Service Pack is going to fix these issues.

I agree! But, curious from your perspective, what kind of issues? What really bothers you most about Vista?

I am certain that his article in way should invoke a personal attack. I will say that he is certainly more well known and respected as a Windows enthusiast as you are at this time, and based on your "well thought out and informative post " he does no need to worry about you taking his place anytime soon.

Agreed.

He is a self-important douche. "I have a blog and I get invited to trade events, wow I'm so great."

Bhahahaha

I was thinking the same thing.

Stop attacking him like that! Geez. Just because he doesn't like Vista (oh! somebody hates Vista! let's call in the soldiers! doesn't make him a whiner.

Wow, you're just so smart and awesome.

I'll have you know that when I made the switch from Windows XP to Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar, I found all the softare I needed to do what I did on my PC and then some! Mac developers seem to put more time and effort into their applications, creating higher quality, visually appealing, and easier-to-use software.

Well your obviously not that smart though

My comment says software he already has now (which is what his article is about) won’t work, not software he's going to go out and buy new.

Try reading the comments next time before you make yourself look silly.

If you were seriously making the point that the same stuff won't work, then you're stating the obvious. What I'm stating is that you can easily find (free) alternatives on Mac OS X, which is what, obviously, most of the switchers have done. Hell, quite a few applications are actually multiplatform and on hybrid discs (Studio MX 2004 and any Blizzard games come to mind).

Companies that, to quote you "put more time and effort into their applications, creating higher quality, visually appealing, and easier-to-use software." don't usually give there software away for free, Studio MX 2004 and Blizzard games come to mind to me as well.

If we could find everything needed for free, there'd be no computer software industry, which there is.

I was citing those pieces of software to point out that if you already have them for Windows, then you have them for OS X. There are many free, quality applications on OS X. Just look around. Any ones that aren't free are well worth paying for, such as TextMate or Transmit.

Exactly, having to buy some software/hardware was my initial point.

Who cares... This isn't news, it's someone bitching about upgrading before he did his homework to see if his hardware was compatible.

IMHO, it's not news, its someone's opinion.

Really? Which month exactly?

July at least, that would be 18 months that Vista is on the market and everyone should finally be up to speed with software upgrades and driver releases that are fully Vista compliant.

Ok so which day in July?

Morning or afternoon?

7/04/08 12:00:00 AM, right about the time you get that stick outta your butt. :/

Only if you remove your head from yours sweetheart

Obviously i was being to subtle - I love it when people give some arbitrary date when Vista will be ready, or say wait for service pack x etc.. as thought they know something others don't. Are you running Vista now? What's _your_ experience with it? Or are you just echoing the views of others? I ask, as I've been happily running it on multiple PCs since November.

You must not have realized the hypocricy of your comments.

What Chris' opinion of Vista is doesn't make it "reality". Just as someone who loves Vista doens't make that reality either. There is no one "reality" that Vista is good or bad, all you have here are individual experiences. Some are positive and others are negative, none are more right or wrong and no one can say "the reality of Vista is..." because it will be different for each user and computer.

Just because you (or Chris) faces these issues doesn't make them any more valid. Look outside your own bedroom for once and realize that your own (or Chris' or whoever's) experience with Vista isn't the be-all, end-all of Vista.

You can think Vista is "terrible" all you want, it doens't make it so. Just as a fanboy who thinks Vista is the best thing to happen to computers since DOS doens't make it so either.

At some point you've got to evaluate things for yourself rather than just taking yet-another-review-which-slams-vista-because-3rd-party-products-don't-fricking-work as gospel that Vista is a crappy OS.

Everyone knows hardware vendors had plenty of time to get ready for Vista and its really sad that people are blaming Microsoft for the lack of hardware support.

On another note, I wonder why people are having so much trouble with Movie Maker - mine has never crashed

We have incessant issues with it here in some of our design labs. We also have issues with imovie too. Neither product is viable for professional development. Unless you're making home movie stuff...don't bother.

LH had major developement and (mis)management issues. Not once, but twice. Vista is the 3rd incarnation of that. So yeah, Vista is more like a "pull it out of our asses" OS. It's not new. Windows hasn't been new since version 1.0 and it will never be new again because Microsoft is either too scared or too lazy to do a rewrite. Lets hope that Windows 7 is something that everyone will want to use.

When Microsoft makes such a large scale change to the driver subsystem of the OS I tend to think, as many people do, that the issues are predominantly the fault of Microsoft.

Last edited by MrCobra on 28 Feb 2007 - 21:52

I'll agree that there was some management issues, but the development issues where geared more toward the newer security policies Microsoft started to put into place during the development of Vista. The security changes were so drastic that a lot of software broke in the process, which ultimatly forced Microsoft to make a decision and ultimately cancelled some features for Vista.

I think the driver system in Windows needed change. The majority of BSOD’s in Windows wasn’t due to Windows malfunction, but unstable third-party drivers. Microsoft’s first answer to this problem was certified drivers. A system designed to ensure a third-party driver is stable in Windows. However, this moving all drivers away from the kernel is the best solution and one Microsoft put into place with Vista.

Now, is it Microsoft’s fault that legacy drivers don’t work in Windows. Well, yes, because they changed their driver system. However, is it Microsoft’s fault that the hardware companies don’t feel it’s cost effective to re-engineer their drivers to meet the new standards of the OS? No. That’s the price of upgrading; some things work, while others will not.

See, it's that kind of commitment that must make Microsoft's heart sing with joy!

He's an immature whiner...because he dares to think for himself and speak up?

Welcome to Nazi Vistaland.

probably a lot. on every major release, there are MS doomsday predictions.. people whining and expressing fury and confusion about this new OS. let's not forget that they proudly announce that they'll be going to back to the previous version.. which at one time was itself the despised new kid on the block. i've seen articles regarding windows 2000 where the writer was declaring NT4 FTW. i'm sure the cycle goes back even farther.

So he's an idiot for expressing his opinion?

I'm with him. Vista sucks. Do that make me an idiot? If I meet your criteria for being an idiot, good. At least I think for myself.

When did I say he's an idiot for expressing his opinion? I said he's an idiot for basing his opinion on a product on faults that have nothing to do with the product itself. That's moronic.

You can dislike Vista all you'd like, in fact I never thought I was going to upgrade for at least six months because I didn't like it either.

I don't care what you like or don't like, just base your opinion on something that is reasonable.

And jeez, are you going out with him or something? You've just written like 15 posts defending him

What us "mindless Vista flag wavers" are condemning is calling Vista a horrible OS when these issues have nothing to do with Vista itself. Microsoft can't help the fact that the hardware vendors didn't create drivers in time and in some cases aren't even planning on supporting Vista in the first place.

You can have your own opinion, that's fine with me. In fact I'm more open-minded than most people I know. Just don't call something a poor product when your reasoning has nothing to do with the product itself.

makes up for his 'size'