Windows Vista has kind of gotten a bum rap. Some of the rap is deserved -- Microsoft shipped it too early. But for the most part, the rap is carried on by vocal techies who just like to poop on things because they think criticizing things makes them appear more knowledgeable.

Talking to a techie about the quality of mainstream software is a lot like talking to a film school graduate about the quality of mainstream movies. Sure, you might have liked Pirates of the Caribbean but talk to a film snob and it's the 7th sign of the Apocalypse. So how good is Windows Vista? The answer is, pretty good. Far better than Windows XP. But I can think of 5 big mistakes Microsoft made that has taken a window out of its sails.

Let me outline those 5 mistakes Microsoft made with the Windows Vista launch and talk about how Microsoft might be able to keep Windows Vista from being a sequel to Windows ME.
#1 The UAC. The User Account Control in Windows Vista is a feature that appears to have been designed by a marketing committee. Some casual computer user decided that the way to make other casual users think that Windows Vista was "secure" was to have more prompts. A lot more prompts. And so, even a power user (i.e. early adopters) logged on as an administrator is going to find themselves being prompted regularly. They can turn it off but that defeats the entire purpose of having better security.

The result: Power users turn it off and casual users learn to ignore the myriad of repetitive dialogs.

Solution: Have the UAC be a lot smarter. A simple "Always give permission to continue for this action" checkbox at the bottom of the dialog would be nice. It's bad enough that changing the IP address on Vista requires 5 clicks to get to (versus 2 in Windows XP) but it adds a 6th click to get past the UAC.

#2 Windows Vista was shipped before drivers were ready. This, combined with item #1 are probably responsible for the majority of the negative vibe Windows Vista has received.

As a practical matter, the first usable beta of Windows Vista wasn't made available until 4 or so months before Windows Vista shipped (or merely 1 month before "gold". This meant that many drivers, video drivers in particular, weren't ready. But for all those people who have a finicky scanner or Air card or other specialty peripheral had to be guinea pigs.

The result: Early adopters were stung with problematic behavior and a lack of drivers which caused frustration that they shared a lot with others.

Solution: This is mostly dealt with now (as of July 26th for nVidia users for instance). But when one considers how much reputation damage this caused Microsoft should really give more care in the future. Release a stable public beta long enough before going gold so that developers can provide adequate support.

#3 The new Start menu. Love the new Start Search. Kudos. Don't love the Start menu navigation which wants to exist in a fixed window. The example screenshot shows Microsoft's own apps being cut off. For those of us who liked to seriously organize our Start menu items into categories and such, this new start menu option is a huge pain.

Solution: Make the All Programs button behavior an option between the classic expanding menu or the new menu container.

#4 Unbelievably bad desktop performance. Another item that really hurt the initial impression of Windows Vista was how horrible basic desktop operations like copying and zipping were. A user would be copying a handful of files and would get this dialog trying to estimate how long the copy should take. Here's your answer: less than a second! At least, that's what it should have taken. Instead, the estimating time dialog would take a few seconds and then the copy would take a second or two. This sort of thing on routine file copying and moving made Windows Vista feel like a pig.

Solution: Service Pack 1 is supposed to address this sort of thing more thoroughly but the good news is that Microsoft did officially release some patches that improves desktop performance significantly.

#5 Upgrade Pricing is a joke. I wonder what color the sky is on planet Microsoft. Because on planet Microsoft, the Xbox 360 is $350 which not only includes the OS (with Media Center), a 20 Gigabyte Hard drive and other goodies, but at the same time Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade lists for $160. Sure, it's not a truly fair comparison (console makers get a piece of revenue from console games) but the point is still valid. One might get the impression that Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC OS market but does not in the console market.

The big problem is that Microsoft's marketing never made the case for what you are actually getting for that $160. I like Windows Vista. I think it's a big improvement over Windows XP. And when I buy a computer, I am glad Windows Vista comes with it. But upgrading my existing computers? The incredibly stingy "Family Discount" (which has expired) wasn't even close to justifying upgrading machines to Vista.

Maybe there is $160 in value buried in Windows Vista Home Premium but Microsoft's marketing didn't make the case. And I can't find it -- especially when you combine it with the above issues. This wasn't a problem with Windows XP. Windows XP was blatantly better than Windows ME/98 and it was noticeably better than Windows 2000 (which only had a tiny share of the market compared to 98/ME). As a result, 7 months later, Windows Vista has less than 10% of the market. By contrast, I remember watching Windows XP's launch and the migration to Windows XP was pretty swift.

Solution: No solution. They aren't likely to lower pricing any time soon. Once Service Pack 1 has been integrated into the OEM versions (the ones that ship with new PCs) you'll see nearly everyone opting for Windows Vista on a new machine while older machines continue with Windows XP.

Conclusions:
I could go on with numerous other items like the terrible icon handling, the fact that development tools weren't ready for prime time, that Microsoft's marketing efforts were seemingly handled by non-technical people (I mean, really, Flip3D is actually one of the first things mentioned on the Windows Vista home page -- how deep are you digging to find compelling features when a fairly useless task switcher is your money shot?), all have contributed to the negative buzz around Windows Vista.

Which is a shame because Windows Vista is really very good. On a scale from 1 to 10, if Windows 98 was a 4, Windows ME a 3, Windows 2000 a 6 and Windows XP a 7 then Windows Vista is easily an 8. It's a worthy and significant upgrade. It deserves a good reputation. Hopefully, Microsoft can get Service Pack 1 out sooner rather than later and address as best they can the issues that many people have brought up.

Note: This is the first of the new series of weekly Neowin.net editorials. Let us know what you think.


There are 259 additional comments
Advertisement
(17 replies) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #1 Posted by tripleXit on 16 Aug 2007 - 01:52
What about the confusion over Vista-ready PCs and Vista-capable PCs? That's just bad marketing...
Quote this comment #1.1 Posted by Frogboy on 16 Aug 2007 - 01:54
Quote - (tripleXit said @ #1)
What about the confusion over Vista-ready PCs and Vista-capable PCs? That's just bad marketing...


Ah good point! Early adopters who got PC's that implied they could use Windows Vista as marketed soon discovered that they couldn't even get Aero to run decently thus helping put a taint on the early experience.
Quote this comment #1.2 Posted by C_Guy on 16 Aug 2007 - 02:57
Nope, it's not bad marketing. It's consumers unwilling to take 5 minutes to research a purchase decision. It's not confusing at all, even if you aren't a tech-head.
Quote this comment #1.3 Posted by Mascrin on 16 Aug 2007 - 03:29
Quote - (C_Guy said @ #1.2)
Nope, it's not bad marketing. It's consumers unwilling to take 5 minutes to research a purchase decision. It's not confusing at all, even if you aren't a tech-head.


Wow. Text book Microsoft apologist. It's the customer's fault that they didn't intuitively get the difference between Vista capable and Vista ready.
Quote this comment #1.4 Posted by Ideas Man on 16 Aug 2007 - 06:19
Quote - (Mascrin said @ #1.3)
Quote - (C_Guy said @ #1.2)
Nope, it's not bad marketing. It's consumers unwilling to take 5 minutes to research a purchase decision. It's not confusing at all, even if you aren't a tech-head.


Wow. Text book Microsoft apologist. It's the customer's fault that they didn't intuitively get the difference between Vista capable and Vista ready.


Do you honestly think Microsoft is the only company where people have trouble? Ask a couple of randoms on the street if they can tell you the difference between 1080i and 1080p for a digital television, or HD-DVD and BluRay, or DVD-R and DVD+R.

If you're unsure, would you just blindly pick one or research it first? Of course, these days, easier to make a mistake and blame the other person than take responsibility, who takes responsibility these days? That's old fashioned.
Quote this comment #1.5 Posted by whocares78 on 16 Aug 2007 - 06:34
Quote - (Ideas Man said @ #1.4)
Quote - (Mascrin said @ #1.3)
Quote - (C_Guy said @ #1.2)
Nope, it's not bad marketing. It's consumers unwilling to take 5 minutes to research a purchase decision. It's not confusing at all, even if you aren't a tech-head.


Wow. Text book Microsoft apologist. It's the customer's fault that they didn't intuitively get the difference between Vista capable and Vista ready.


Do you honestly think Microsoft is the only company where people have trouble? Ask a couple of randoms on the street if they can tell you the difference between 1080i and 1080p for a digital television, or HD-DVD and BluRay, or DVD-R and DVD+R.

If you're unsure, would you just blindly pick one or research it first? Of course, these days, easier to make a mistake and blame the other person than take responsibility, who takes responsibility these days? That's old fashioned.


If i buy a bluray palyer that sasy HD-DVD compatible i expect it to play HD-DVD, if i buy a TV trhat says 1080p i expect it to have 1080p if i buy a DVD-R i expect it to be a DVD-R
if i buy a vista capable machine i expect it to be able to handle all the features of vista.

why shoudl the consumer have to research if a computer that says it is vista capable is actually vista capable.
Quote this comment #1.6 Posted by ScottKin on 16 Aug 2007 - 07:29
Quote - (Mascrin said @ #1.3)
Quote - (C_Guy said @ #1.2)
Nope, it's not bad marketing. It's consumers unwilling to take 5 minutes to research a purchase decision. It's not confusing at all, even if you aren't a tech-head.


Wow. Text book Microsoft apologist. It's the customer's fault that they didn't intuitively get the difference between Vista capable and Vista ready.


Sad but true, Mascrin - people don't take time to read what they need to. If they did, they'd never step foot in a McDonalds or any other fast food establishment. I take it that you've never heard of "caveat emptor" before?

If consumers don't take the time to actually READ about things that they're going to purchase, is that the manufacturer's fault? Hardly - it's the consumer's fault for not taking a few minutes and ask someone those important questions about the product...someone who might actually KNOW what they're talking about

It's late here, and I don't have the time to dig into Brad's comments - but rest assured that I'll be fresh-as-old-socks tomorrow and dive into this Editorial in the morning.
Quote this comment #1.7 Posted by kaiwai on 16 Aug 2007 - 10:08
Quote - (C_Guy said @ #1.2)
Nope, it's not bad marketing. It's consumers unwilling to take 5 minutes to research a purchase decision. It's not confusing at all, even if you aren't a tech-head.


Pardon, how is t the end users fault - when I see 'Windows Vista Capable', I assume that if I purchase a computer now, my specificiations will be enough to be able to not only run Windows Vista but have all the cool features mentioned that will come with Windows Vista.

Its not *MY* or anyone elses problem that Microsoft can't adequately and clearly aticulate what they mean by capable - what is so hard with having two or more stickers with the level of support one should get from Windows Vista, "Windows Vista Basic - this will support the core features", "Windows Vista Premium - This will support advanced features" then have a pamphlet with a matrix outlinging what each term means what each term will provide - "Windows Basic Capable means that [list of features] will be supported].
Quote this comment #1.8 Posted by MMaster23 on 16 Aug 2007 - 10:22
Quote - (whocares78 said @ #1.5)
Quote - (Ideas Man said @ #1.4)
Quote - (Mascrin said @ #1.3)
Quote - (C_Guy said @ #1.2)
Nope, it's not bad marketing. It's consumers unwilling to take 5 minutes to research a purchase decision. It's not confusing at all, even if you aren't a tech-head.


Wow. Text book Microsoft apologist. It's the customer's fault that they didn't intuitively get the difference between Vista capable and Vista ready.


Do you honestly think Microsoft is the only company where people have trouble? Ask a couple of randoms on the street if they can tell you the difference between 1080i and 1080p for a digital television, or HD-DVD and BluRay, or DVD-R and DVD+R.

If you're unsure, would you just blindly pick one or research it first? Of course, these days, easier to make a mistake and blame the other person than take responsibility, who takes responsibility these days? That's old fashioned.


If i buy a bluray palyer that sasy HD-DVD compatible i expect it to play HD-DVD, if i buy a TV trhat says 1080p i expect it to have 1080p if i buy a DVD-R i expect it to be a DVD-R
if i buy a vista capable machine i expect it to be able to handle all the features of vista.

why shoudl the consumer have to research if a computer that says it is vista capable is actually vista capable.


if your new TV is HD Ready ... does that mean that it can do 1080p ?
no ... because HD ready means it's 720p ... full hd is 1080p

if consumers don't get their act togheter, they shouldn't whine.

i hate whiners
Quote this comment #1.9 Posted by kaiwai on 16 Aug 2007 - 13:10
Quote - (MMaster23 said @ #1.
Quote - (whocares78 said @ #1.5)
Quote - (Ideas Man said @ #1.4)
Quote - (Mascrin said @ #1.3)
Quote - (C_Guy said @ #1.2)
Nope, it's not bad marketing. It's consumers unwilling to take 5 minutes to research a purchase decision. It's not confusing at all, even if you aren't a tech-head.


Wow. Text book Microsoft apologist. It's the customer's fault that they didn't intuitively get the difference between Vista capable and Vista ready.


Do you honestly think Microsoft is the only company where people have trouble? Ask a couple of randoms on the street if they can tell you the difference between 1080i and 1080p for a digital television, or HD-DVD and BluRay, or DVD-R and DVD+R.

If you're unsure, would you just blindly pick one or research it first? Of course, these days, easier to make a mistake and blame the other person than take responsibility, who takes responsibility these days? That's old fashioned.


If i buy a bluray palyer that sasy HD-DVD compatible i expect it to play HD-DVD, if i buy a TV trhat says 1080p i expect it to have 1080p if i buy a DVD-R i expect it to be a DVD-R
if i buy a vista capable machine i expect it to be able to handle all the features of vista.

why shoudl the consumer have to research if a computer that says it is vista capable is actually vista capable.


if your new TV is HD Ready ... does that mean that it can do 1080p ?
no ... because HD ready means it's 720p ... full hd is 1080p

if consumers don't get their act togheter, they shouldn't whine.

i hate whiners


Pardon? the agreed definition of what HD is just that. The issue at play is the fact that defining what capable actually was by providing materials to retailers.

Now, is Microsoft trying to rip off customers? nope. One could actually say the responsibility actually falls on the OEM's who deliberately under powered the machines.
Quote this comment #1.10 Posted by EJocys on 16 Aug 2007 - 14:37
Quote - (Mascrin said @ #1.3)
Wow. Text book Microsoft apologist. It's the customer's fault that they didn't intuitively get the difference between Vista capable and Vista ready.

I think "Vista Retarded" and "Vista Ready" would had been more intuitive.
Quote this comment #1.11 Posted by C_Guy on 16 Aug 2007 - 14:38
"Its not *MY* or anyone elses problem that Microsoft can't adequately and clearly aticulate what they mean by capable"

Except that we have to take into consideration that Microsoft DID do this. Hop on over to microsoft.com and if you still can't find the information you want I'll be happy to provide a direct link. Anyway, if you still don't understand you should get help making your purchasing decision. Making false assumptions and then blaming the manufacturer for YOUR error is still YOUR own fault.

Why consumers so reluctant to take responsibility for their own money is beyond me.
Quote this comment #1.12 Posted by RAID 0 on 16 Aug 2007 - 17:46
Quote - (C_Guy said @ #1.11)
"Its not *MY* or anyone elses problem that Microsoft can't adequately and clearly aticulate what they mean by capable"

Except that we have to take into consideration that Microsoft DID do this. Hop on over to microsoft.com and if you still can't find the information you want I'll be happy to provide a direct link. Anyway, if you still don't understand you should get help making your purchasing decision. Making false assumptions and then blaming the manufacturer for YOUR error is still YOUR own fault.

Why consumers so reluctant to take responsibility for their own money is beyond me.


Exactly. Was I the only one to download AND run the "Vista upgrade compatibility wizard"? It ran it's tests, and told you what hardware you should upgrade and what hardware was fine for vista. You picked at the start what version of Vista you wanted.. and there ya go! Why others didn't bother to run that is beyond me... oh wait... it's not. People are ignorant, for the most part.
Quote this comment #1.13 Posted by kaiwai on 16 Aug 2007 - 19:52
Quote - (RAID 0 said @ #1.12)
Quote - (C_Guy said @ #1.11)
"Its not *MY* or anyone elses problem that Microsoft can't adequately and clearly aticulate what they mean by capable"

Except that we have to take into consideration that Microsoft DID do this. Hop on over to microsoft.com and if you still can't find the information you want I'll be happy to provide a direct link. Anyway, if you still don't understand you should get help making your purchasing decision. Making false assumptions and then blaming the manufacturer for YOUR error is still YOUR own fault.

Why consumers so reluctant to take responsibility for their own money is beyond me.


Exactly. Was I the only one to download AND run the "Vista upgrade compatibility wizard"? It ran it's tests, and told you what hardware you should upgrade and what hardware was fine for vista. You picked at the start what version of Vista you wanted.. and there ya go! Why others didn't bother to run that is beyond me... oh wait... it's not. People are ignorant, for the most part.


******** - read the article - the issue is that they made the decision AT the purchase of the computer - are you telling me that these customers can go into the store and say, "may I run this application on the machine before purchasing it?" you're saying that the average customer is smart enough to actually navigate Microsoft.com - these are the same morons who open up attachments and stuff without checking who sent it, people who install *.exes from emails that claim to be be 'updates' from Microsoft.

But like I said, it isn't Microsofts responsibility.
Quote this comment #1.14 Posted by Morpheus Phreak on 16 Aug 2007 - 20:13
Quote - (kaiwai said @ #1.7)
Quote - (C_Guy said @ #1.2)
Nope, it's not bad marketing. It's consumers unwilling to take 5 minutes to research a purchase decision. It's not confusing at all, even if you aren't a tech-head.


Pardon, how is t the end users fault - when I see 'Windows Vista Capable', I assume that if I purchase a computer now, my specificiations will be enough to be able to not only run Windows Vista but have all the cool features mentioned that will come with Windows Vista.

Its not *MY* or anyone elses problem that Microsoft can't adequately and clearly aticulate what they mean by capable - what is so hard with having two or more stickers with the level of support one should get from Windows Vista, "Windows Vista Basic - this will support the core features", "Windows Vista Premium - This will support advanced features" then have a pamphlet with a matrix outlinging what each term means what each term will provide - "Windows Basic Capable means that [list of features] will be supported].


Actually Microsoft can.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...de/capable.mspx


A lot of the people in this thread are perfect textbook examples of those who should not consider themselves knowledgable about technology, and who should not give anyone else advice.

Reminds me of Geek Squad techs
Quote this comment #1.15 Posted by kaiwai on 16 Aug 2007 - 22:44
Quote - (Morpheus Phreak said @ #1.14)
Quote - (kaiwai said @ #1.7)
Quote - (C_Guy said @ #1.2)
Nope, it's not bad marketing. It's consumers unwilling to take 5 minutes to research a purchase decision. It's not confusing at all, even if you aren't a tech-head.


Pardon, how is t the end users fault - when I see 'Windows Vista Capable', I assume that if I purchase a computer now, my specificiations will be enough to be able to not only run Windows Vista but have all the cool features mentioned that will come with Windows Vista.

Its not *MY* or anyone elses problem that Microsoft can't adequately and clearly aticulate what they mean by capable - what is so hard with having two or more stickers with the level of support one should get from Windows Vista, "Windows Vista Basic - this will support the core features", "Windows Vista Premium - This will support advanced features" then have a pamphlet with a matrix outlinging what each term means what each term will provide - "Windows Basic Capable means that [list of features] will be supported].


Actually Microsoft can.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...de/capable.mspx


A lot of the people in this thread are perfect textbook examples of those who should not consider themselves knowledgable about technology, and who should not give anyone else advice.

Reminds me of Geek Squad techs


And people like you should learn how to read before considering you know something about IT.

I never said the information wasn't there, I said that the end user was too dumb to actually find the information on Microsofts website. I also said that it isn't Microsofts responsibility - how about reading before making an ass of yourself.
Quote this comment #1.16 Posted by Osprey on 17 Aug 2007 - 02:08
Quote - (tripleXit said @ #1)
What about the confusion over Vista-ready PCs and Vista-capable PCs? That's just bad marketing...
Microsoft markets no such thing as a "Vista-ready" label. There is "Vista-capable" and "Vista Premium Ready." Surely, you can figure out the difference. Don't blame Microsoft for your confusion.
Quote this comment #1.17 Posted by whocares78 on 17 Aug 2007 - 06:06
Quote - (MMaster23 said @ #1.
if consumers don't get their act togheter, they shouldn't whine.

i hate whiners


i understand the differences and do not consider it whining to ask for somethign to do what it states it does
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #2 Posted by -Hiroshi- on 16 Aug 2007 - 01:52
*Results may vary.. (Adds that to his editorial)
(2 replies) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #3 Posted by Lasker on 16 Aug 2007 - 01:52
Very good point. I think what everybody is waiting is for SP1
Quote this comment #3.1 Posted by ThaCrip on 16 Aug 2007 - 04:00
i would probably agree with you... cause by then most of the issues should be worked out.

cause im still using windows xp myself, and i wont even consider using vista til atleast SP1 minimum.
Quote this comment #3.2 Posted by GP007 on 16 Aug 2007 - 15:25
It was the same with XP back in 2001. People never did like it until SP1, and even then many didn't like it still. Now they'll tell you that XP SP2 is great and there is no need to upgrade at all!

This is all just history repeating itself people. But many have short memories and forget the past.
(10 replies) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #4 Posted by Eis on 16 Aug 2007 - 01:55
You didn't mention anything at all about gaming on Vista. The fact startup times and FPS are significantly reduced in certain (most) games that I've played on Vista made me switch back to dual booting with XP.

What's the point in buying a new operating system if you're a gamer just to put up with irritatingly slower games, which results in you doing worse.

Just thought that would be worth mentioning.
Quote this comment #4.1 Posted by -Hiroshi- on 16 Aug 2007 - 02:15
Totally agree with you. The gaming in Vista at this time is lackluster.. surely when hardware gets more powerful it'll be a non-issue, but for now, if you're a gamer, stay with XP.
Quote this comment #4.2 Posted by thenetavenger on 16 Aug 2007 - 07:44
Maybe the reason it wasn't 'directly' mentioned, is that now that the ATI and NVidia drivers have matured, as of May/June, Vista is BEATING XP in 99% of gaming.

Even with the early 'bad' drivers, the performance difference in the 'average' of the games was 10%, so this was 54FPS instead of 60FPS compared to XP, which wasn't a major drop.

Not only is Vista matching XP in terms of gaming performance, but with the WDDM and VRAM virtualization in Vista, gamers can turn up texture quality higher than in XP. So for example in City of Heroes you could run at Medium in XP and get 60FPS with a 128mb card, in Vista with the same card you can run at Very High and get 60FPS+, and enjoy a better quality game.

A couple of tricks for people that have had performance issues with games in Vista.

• Set your Anti-Aliasing in the ATI or NVidia Driver, and don't turn on this feature in game unless the game was released this year. Older games try to enable AA in a way that is a major performance killer with how the Vista Video Subsystem works. (i.e. the games don't understand Vista, so end up enabling AA in a way that kills performance.)

• If the game is still performing badly, in the compatibility tab of the Shortcut for the game, set it to "WindowsXP SP2". Most games this doesn't matter, but some games don't see higher than 5.1 when versioning the OS, and will fall back to Win98 or Win2k optimized settings. There are also some games like a few Sony MMOs that don't detect the RAM in your system properly because it doesn't know what Vista is, so instead of the game using 700mb for smooth performance, it will only allocate 200mb even if you have 1GB or 2GB of RAM.

• You can try, The 'Disable Desktop Composition" in the compatibility tab as well and it MAY help with some games, but also it may 'slow' down some games, as the Aero interface is actually faster than falling back to the XP method of drawing without a direct write composer (Aero). Also this usually only affects games that you play in a 'Window' as Vista is good about setting the Aero "Desktop Composistion" for full screen games, usually turning it partially or all the way off if needed.

• Last rule, BE SURE to install your video drivers from the NVidia or ATI web site. The Drivers for Video that MS ships with Vista (and even available via Windows Update) are not allowed to have the OpenGL ICD, which means OpenGL games get NO hardware acceleration with the default drivers, and many games use OpenGL, or even if they are DirectX, will sometimes be hybrids and utilizing some OpenGL code. (I have seen many gamers uninstall Vista because they never installed the 'real' drivers from NVidia or ATI, and were horrified at the performance of the 'out of the box' MS supplied Video drivers.

I agree that at launch the drivers from ATI and NVidia were awful, and in some games the performance penalty was more than the 10% average. However there were some games that had a 10% gain in Vista even at launch with the crap drivers. (Go look up the January tests people did online.)

However with the mature drivers from NVidia and ATi, Vista gaming is on track and pulling away from XP. If you play MMOs or games with a lot of 'instancing/loading' you will find your game load times and 'zoning/loading' times several times faster than XP due to the smart caching system in Vista. In groups of players, you can always spot the people running Vista, as they are already loaded into the instance before everyone else, even if they have low end hardware.

So don't discount Vista on Gaming, and the editorial did 'kind of' mention this issue, but only via the poor driver support topic instead of talking full scale about the Gaming and how it gave Vista a bad start because of the drivers for Gaming specifically.

Quote this comment #4.3 Posted by Chicane-UK on 16 Aug 2007 - 07:44
Those of us who remeber XP's launch will remeber that it took some time before you could properly move "off" Windows 98 and properly onto XP for gaming such was the performance hit.

Its the same with every new version of Windows.. and you either upgrade your PC enough that you don't notice the hit of the new OS because the overall speed boost from the new hardware negates it, or you stick with dual boot for the forseeable future.

Not that i'm justifying the speed hit of course - I still can't get "into" Vista, but just saying it was the same with XP before it!
Quote this comment #4.4 Posted by Foub on 16 Aug 2007 - 10:07
For most things I've totally dropped Windows in favor of Ubuntu Linux. I dual-boot a stripped down version of XP just for games. If it weren't for this I'd go completely over to Linux. After 25 years of experience with M$' OSes I can honestly say that they're mostly crap. Linux handles a feature, like UAC, properly already.
Quote this comment #4.5 Posted by thenetavenger on 16 Aug 2007 - 13:28
Quote - (Foub said @ #4.4)
For most things I've totally dropped Windows in favor of Ubuntu Linux. I dual-boot a stripped down version of XP just for games. If it weren't for this I'd go completely over to Linux. After 25 years of experience with M$' OSes I can honestly say that they're mostly crap. Linux handles a feature, like UAC, properly already.


1) Linux didn't always have a mechanism in the Desktop Manager to handle 'elevation'.

2) Since this is fork is talking about gaming performance, how's gaming working for you in Linux? Even games ported to Linux DO NOT have the same level of performance as they do in Windows for a reason. Linux has been around longer than MS has been trying to do gaming on NT, why is gaming on NT still winning?

3) Ubuntu? You realize some of their servers were just hacked a few days ago. Nice OS Pick.
Quote this comment #4.6 Posted by GP007 on 16 Aug 2007 - 15:30
Quote - (Chicane-UK said @ #4.3)
Those of us who remeber XP's launch will remeber that it took some time before you could properly move "off" Windows 98 and properly onto XP for gaming such was the performance hit.

Its the same with every new version of Windows.. and you either upgrade your PC enough that you don't notice the hit of the new OS because the overall speed boost from the new hardware negates it, or you stick with dual boot for the forseeable future.

Not that i'm justifying the speed hit of course - I still can't get "into" Vista, but just saying it was the same with XP before it!


Great point! Finally someone who remembers the past. I thought I was the only one here that did. Forget XP, even going back to Win2k it was a pain until drivers got good enough to pass Win98 in gaming. If Vista kept the same driver model as XP, we wouldn't be having this issue, but they changed it all around and this is why nVidia and ATi have problems. The newest drivers should be good and on par with XP performence wise. Give them a few more updates, and by the end of the year Vista performence will have passed up XP.
Quote this comment #4.7 Posted by Foub on 16 Aug 2007 - 18:14
Quote - (thenetavenger said @ #4.5)
1) Linux didn't always have a mechanism in the Desktop Manager to handle 'elevation'.


The way it handles permissions is far less annoying than with Vista.

Quote -
2) Since this is fork is talking about gaming performance, how's gaming working for you in Linux? Even games ported to Linux DO NOT have the same level of performance as they do in Windows for a reason. Linux has been around longer than MS has been trying to do gaming on NT, why is gaming on NT still winning?


There are Linux programs like Transgaming, and Crossover that use Wine (the newest version is much better at emulating DirectX now) to play games and many games do run quite well under them. Though, as I stated, I dual boot with a stripped down version of Xp just for games. The only reason its winning is that its on more systems. This is also why Windows' OSes also have a greater amount of viruses and the like as well. Popular doesn't always mean better. Games are the only thing holding me back from going all the way with Linux.

Quote -
3) Ubuntu? You realize some of their servers were just hacked a few days ago. Nice OS Pick.


So, what? M$ servers are hacked far more often.

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. Windows is still crap. You can put all of the pretty wrappers on crap and it'll still be nothing more than crap.
Quote this comment #4.8 Posted by Eis on 16 Aug 2007 - 20:08
Quote - (thenetavenger said @ #4.2)
Maybe the reason it wasn't 'directly' mentioned, is that now that the ATI and NVidia drivers have matured, as of May/June, Vista is BEATING XP in 99% of gaming.

Is that a real percentage or did you make that up? I'm not trying to be an ass by asking, but it seems extremely unlikely. I, for one, have only found one or two games that go faster in Vista. And, yeah, they're the newer games. But, even after trying everything you've said, the other games I play still run awful.

Warrock - I experience random chopping, which is a VERY low end graphics game, and some of the vehicles just disappear right before my eyes, which causes almost instant death.

Silkroadonline - You're right about MMOs in a certain aspect. The game runs more smoothly than it ever did on XP (which is something, because XP ran nearly perfect unless in town), but the problems far surpass the advantages in this game. Starting up this little beauty takes a cool 5-10 minutes minimum. The first time my screen just went black for 15 minutes (on an intesting note, ALL games I play take longer to start up than they ever did on XP, even if the FPS when I finally start playing are increased) and I thought my computer froze. But, yeah, faster actual gameplay once you get inside. Too bad those friggin' Korean game makers can't make it so their game doesn't crash all the time and I have to start up (another 5-10 minutes) every time I go to town.

Sims 2 (I don't play it, just had it lying around and decided to test it) - EVERYTHING is slower. This is the Sims 2 man, the graphics suck. But starting it up and loading up the neighborhoods is just RIDICULOUSLY slow. I installed it on XP and the game took about 20 seconds to start up. Vista it took 3 minutes the first time, 2 minutes every time after that. Loading up a neighborhood in XP takes me about 10 seconds, Vista it takes 1 minute. FPS wise Vista is about 20% slower all the time.

CSS - Slower. Everything.

Chaos Theory - Faster. Start up, FPS, everything. I liked this.

I could go on but there's not really any point. My experience, even after trying all your tricks (which I tried almost all of them before you mentioned and when I made my initial post), is still below XP. I play a lot of Korean MMOs and FPSs that are pretty offbrand generic rip offs of other good games, and I play a lot of popular and all around good games, and very few of them run faster than they do in XP. This is all based on experience, as well, and after doing most of the things you described. So, I don't know where you got your facts from, or if you actually just have such a nice computer that the OS doesn't matter to you, but using a pretty midline computer (it was amazing 5 months ago, but you know how it is), Vista is failing me at every front.
Quote this comment #4.9 Posted by Frazell Thomas on 16 Aug 2007 - 21:40
Quote - (thenetavenger said @ #4.5)
1) Linux didn't always have a mechanism in the Desktop Manager to handle 'elevation'.


Meaning what? If you're talking about the GNU/Linux equiv. of UAC it has been in GNU/Linux since I've started messing around with it about 10 years ago...

Quote -
2) Since this is fork is talking about gaming performance, how's gaming working for you in Linux? Even games ported to Linux DO NOT have the same level of performance as they do in Windows for a reason. Linux has been around longer than MS has been trying to do gaming on NT, why is gaming on NT still winning?


The guy already explained that he dual boots XP to serve is gaming needs when it doesn't work well under GNU/Linux. Are you just baiting for something?

Also, GNU/Linux has NOT been around longer than Microsoft... Might do you some good to learn computer history if you're going to consider youself a worthwhile technician. MS was incorporated in 1975 and GNU/Linux wasn't even started until 1984 with the work started by the GNU project.

If you're going to talk about Windows NT it started in 1988 with GNU/Linux coming together with the start of Linus' Kernel in 1991... Both are around the same age...

Quote -
3) Ubuntu? You realize some of their servers were just hacked a few days ago. Nice OS Pick.


So you base your OS choice on who got cracked? If so I'm not sure why you're arguing on the Microsoft side. MS has gotten their head in the right pond and Vista is their first OS since their Secure Code practices matured, but their history in the security department is lack luster. We can only wait and see if real results are in for Vista...

Historically Unix based OS' have the best security track record. It is why Microsoft hosted their own website on Unix servers until the release of Windows Server 2003!

Quote this comment #4.10 Posted by ichi on 17 Aug 2007 - 00:00
Quote - (thenetavenger said @ #4.5)
Even games ported to Linux DO NOT have the same level of performance as they do in Windows for a reason.


Certainly not the same performance... actually it's ofter better on linux.
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #5 Posted by Persecuto on 16 Aug 2007 - 01:58
Interesting read, but not especially helpful, at least not to me.

<quote>It's a worthy and significant upgrade</quote> Really? Why? What is worthy about it and why is it a significant upgrade? How is it better than XP? I've yet to see any real discussion of that. There is a lot of material that describes what is wrong with Vista, but very little that really describes just what is right and why it is necessary.

Security? No, my XP installation is not insecure. Ease of use? What's not easy about XP? Frankly, the truth is there is no compelling reason to upgrade that I can think of. Pretty doesn't cut it. XP is pretty. Everything can be made even prettier with a bit of work, but that's not a compelling reason to upgrade.

Until I see a truly informative description of what is right about Vista that is better than what exists in XP, I will remain with what I know and what works.

And I must add, if it weren't for Adobe products and the games and supporting software that I enjoy, I'd be a Linux user. My Mandriva 2007.1 work box is outstanding. It IS pretty, solid, reliable, and does all I need to have done at work.

But I'm always interested in reading opinions and evaluations of what is right and better.
(3 replies) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #6 Posted by PatrynXX on 16 Aug 2007 - 02:00
the differences between XP Pro and Vista is hardly worth the price of an upgrade. and thats what some companies feel.
Is it better? Crashes are about the same and still get BSOD's, so I'm not sure how much of an improvement it is. Certainly not the Longhorn I was expecting... but not the Windows ME many said it was.
Quote this comment #6.1 Posted by ThaCrip on 16 Aug 2007 - 04:10
i never get any BSOD's on windows xp pretty much ever... once in a great while maybe... but all in all it's very stable so vista cant be any better than xp is in this area... atleast not noticeably anyways.

i just think people expect a big boost over the previous version of windows which those days are not going to happen since WinXP already got pretty much everything people need from a pc... stuff just works and is stable and has a pretty good speed which xp already has.
Quote this comment #6.2 Posted by Xsabin on 16 Aug 2007 - 04:19
The only BSOD i have seen was related to a 3rd party driver and not Vista.
Quote this comment #6.3 Posted by Croquant on 16 Aug 2007 - 07:48
For me, there's nothing in Vista that I want, aside from DX10. Heck, I could get by with Win2K if I had to.
Dam you Microsoft for not making DX10 for XP. Dam you to hell.
Doesn't matter now, becasue everyone's making their games XP compatible now (by allowing DX9 fall-back support if you don't have Vista) but there's no reason why DX10 couldn't have been made for XP. Except then NOBODY would have bought Vista, and MS knows it.
(2 replies) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #7 Posted by +Ironman273 on 16 Aug 2007 - 02:00
#1: UAC will start making more sense when more sofware apps use it correctly. A lot of the stuff running now assumes it's running under full administrative Windows XP mode, which it doesn't need to run in. That's why you get all the UAC prompts. As more programs realize how to code properly to only make the needed calls to administrative mode you'll stop seeing the UAC so much. It's just like Mac or Linux, except those programs are already used to that type of behavior.

#2: I kind of agree with this one, but it's also the hardware makers fault. You're going to have growing pains anytime a new OS is released.

#3: Start Menu Navigation is not needed for 95% of the things you should be using the start menu for. Removing the option for running it in "classic" mode makes people learn the new way, which is better. I know, people think better is subjective and hate change, but it really is better

#4: I never had these problems so I can't really comment on them.

#5: Most people get an OS with their new PC. Very few actually buy upgrades. Even those that do, they'll probably do it now when it's new. Pretty soon it'll be on the next PC they buy.

Just my $0.02. YMMV
Quote this comment #7.1 Posted by danj205 on 16 Aug 2007 - 11:19
I agree with much of what you say Ironman, to expand a little though:

For number 2, Vista has had release candidates and betas for some time, these should be considered stable enough to start making drivers for, if not beta then definitely release candidates. Also, Vista was out for businesses in November, while out for consumers three months later for home users. What were the hardware driver developers doing in this time? Also, this is a standard gripe with any new Windows version. Not new.

For number 3, the new Vista UI guidelines say that programs should not make a folder in the start menu, and only put in application icons necessary (i.e. the main program). This will take some time for new software developers/installer makers to get used to. Plus, you have Search... just type in what you want?
Quote this comment #7.2 Posted by kaiwai on 16 Aug 2007 - 14:47
Quote - (danj205 said @ #7.1)
I agree with much of what you say Ironman, to expand a little though:

For number 2, Vista has had release candidates and betas for some time, these should be considered stable enough to start making drivers for, if not beta then definitely release candidates. Also, Vista was out for businesses in November, while out for consumers three months later for home users. What were the hardware driver developers doing in this time? Also, this is a standard gripe with any new Windows version. Not new.

For number 3, the new Vista UI guidelines say that programs should not make a folder in the start menu, and only put in application icons necessary (i.e. the main program). This will take some time for new software developers/installer makers to get used to. Plus, you have Search... just type in what you want?


Actually the driver API has been stable for alot longer than the whole operating system; and the stability of interfaces lower down have been stable for quite some time too - IIRC many of the interfaces were on paper2-3 years before the beta releases. These driver companies have had plenty of time to get their act together. Just as I am disgusted with AMD's half ass drivers for *NIX (and only supporting Linux - no FreeBSD or Solaris support) I am disgusted at the laziness in regards to Windows Vista driver development.
(11 replies) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #8 Posted by GEIST on 16 Aug 2007 - 02:00
So that's the first Neowin.net editorial and you couldn't think of anything more worthwhile than regurgitating the same, by now very old, Vista woes?
Quote this comment #8.1 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 16 Aug 2007 - 02:09
Whilst it wasn't on the most original subject it was interesting enough. It's something to read and discuss, with users sharing their experiences with Vista.

My experience has been mixed. Some aspects of Vista are very good but the general performance is just too slow. I'm back on XP at the moment but I've downloaded the SP1 ISO and intend to try that when I have some spare time.
Quote this comment #8.2 Posted by Naughty Dog on 16 Aug 2007 - 03:51
Vista seems very good on my old K8 3200+ OCed to 2.5GHz. It sorta slows things a bit but it does work very good for kinda crappy hardware. It doesn't heat up my 7600GT either mind you it is 3 digit temps in my own room. Truthfully all the drivers for my hardware work but the apps don't quite play along well so that is the only reason I'm on XP again. I also tried dual-boot but I logged on to XP almost always so I made my choice pretty clearly.
Quote this comment #8.3 Posted by boo_star on 16 Aug 2007 - 04:51
Quote - (Naughty Dog said @ #8.2)
Vista seems very good on my old K8 3200+ OCed to 2.5GHz. It sorta slows things a bit but it does work very good for kinda crappy hardware. It doesn't heat up my 7600GT either mind you it is 3 digit temps in my own room. Truthfully all the drivers for my hardware work but the apps don't quite play along well so that is the only reason I'm on XP again. I also tried dual-boot but I logged on to XP almost always so I made my choice pretty clearly.


3 digit??

I.E. 100C+ GFX Card?

Or do you mean, it's over 100F in your room and you card doesn't overheat?

Not clear.

Anyway, buy an 8800, then you'll worry about 3 digit temperatures.
Quote this comment #8.4 Posted by +Raa on 16 Aug 2007 - 06:12
Quote - (theyarecomingforyou said @ #8.1)
I'm back on XP at the moment but I've downloaded the SP1 ISO and intend to try that when I have some spare time.


So you illegally downloaded the leaked Vista ISO eh?

Good luck with that!
Quote this comment #8.5 Posted by whocares78 on 16 Aug 2007 - 06:39
Quote - (Raa said @ #8.4)
Quote - (theyarecomingforyou said @ #8.1)
I'm back on XP at the moment but I've downloaded the SP1 ISO and intend to try that when I have some spare time.


So you illegally downloaded the leaked Vista ISO eh?

Good luck with that!


its a service pack that is going to be released for free, it is a beta version of the SP, there is nothign reallly illegal about it, the only issue is it has got out to the public when ms didn't really want it to.
Quote this comment #8.6 Posted by +Brandon Live on 16 Aug 2007 - 07:30
Quote - (whocares78 said @ #8.5)
its a service pack that is going to be released for free, it is a beta version of the SP, there is nothign reallly illegal about it, the only issue is it has got out to the public when ms didn't really want it to.



It is completely unarguably 100% illegal.
Quote this comment #8.7 Posted by Chicane-UK on 16 Aug 2007 - 07:45
Quote -
by now very old, Vista woes?


Very old, yet apparently still very current. Worthy of an editorial IMHO...
Quote this comment #8.8 Posted by whocares78 on 16 Aug 2007 - 07:46
Quote - (Brandon Live said @ #8.6)
Quote - (whocares78 said @ #8.5)
its a service pack that is going to be released for free, it is a beta version of the SP, there is nothign reallly illegal about it, the only issue is it has got out to the public when ms didn't really want it to.



It is completely unarguably 100% illegal.


how do you come to that conclusion, as i said in the end it is goign to be released for free ?? and it's beta which will be released to the public for free to test in a month or two anyway, is there some licensing issue here i don't know about.
Quote this comment #8.9 Posted by NightmarE D on 16 Aug 2007 - 08:52
Quote - (whocares78 said @ #8.
Quote - (Brandon Live said @ #8.6)
Quote - (whocares78 said @ #8.5)
its a service pack that is going to be released for free, it is a beta version of the SP, there is nothign reallly illegal about it, the only issue is it has got out to the public when ms didn't really want it to.



It is completely unarguably 100% illegal.


how do you come to that conclusion, as i said in the end it is goign to be released for free ?? and it's beta which will be released to the public for free to test in a month or two anyway, is there some licensing issue here i don't know about.


The Vista SP1 Beta was released to a small amount of testers in ISO format. It wasn't just SP1 in exe form to install on a Vista system like the leaked XP SP3 Beta. It was an enitre Vista build with SP1 integrated. Now tell me how that couldn't be illegal?

I still can't believe people don't understand the differences in the two betas. I mean how can people see the Vista SP1 download size at a little over 3gb's in ISO form and think it's just the service pack alone? That would be the biggest service pack ever

Also, it's annoying that people automatically assume that the user theyarecomingforyou got it illegally. I don't know how they got it, but for all we know they could very well be a part of the small group of testers. Don't just quickly jump to the conclusion they got it illegally.

My 2 cents worth
Quote this comment #8.10 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 16 Aug 2007 - 10:45
Quote - (NightmarE D said @ #8.9)
The Vista SP1 Beta was released to a small amount of testers in ISO format. It wasn't just SP1 in exe form to install on a Vista system like the leaked XP SP3 Beta. It was an enitre Vista build with SP1 integrated. Now tell me how that couldn't be illegal?

To use it you still need a valid licence for Vista, so it's not like it's a way to bypass anything.
Quote this comment #8.11 Posted by NightmarE D on 16 Aug 2007 - 15:40
Quote - (theyarecomingforyou said @ #8.10)
Quote - (NightmarE D said @ #8.9)
The Vista SP1 Beta was released to a small amount of testers in ISO format. It wasn't just SP1 in exe form to install on a Vista system like the leaked XP SP3 Beta. It was an enitre Vista build with SP1 integrated. Now tell me how that couldn't be illegal?

To use it you still need a valid licence for Vista, so it's not like it's a way to bypass anything.


I actually meant to bring that up. I'm sure that ISO floating around doesn't work with any of those cracks that are also floating around. I'd be too nervous if I downlaoded it and activated it and find out that it doesn't run on my system. There goes an activation I could have used on my original copy.

That's why I don't mess with anything that's leaked anymore. A few years ago when I didn't know as much as I do now, I would have downloaded it in a heartbeat.
(13 replies) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #9 Posted by Magallanes on 16 Aug 2007 - 02:05
How can you say "Windows XP a 7 and vista is a 8" ??. may be we must mention "what's cool in vista". AFAIK the more noticeable new feature in vista is the new filesystem ups i forgot that they removed it, so vista just give directx10 (still a buggy and unsupported stuff).

And no, i don't think that it's the price, almost all windows are illegal copies, so if vista is still inpopular, you cannot blame the price since even people didn't installed for free.
Quote this comment #9.1 Posted by reidtheweed01 on 16 Aug 2007 - 03:39
I hope no one else saw this post.
Quote this comment #9.2 Posted by +Brandon Live on 16 Aug 2007 - 07:31
Quote - (Magallanes said @ #9)
How can you say "Windows XP a 7 and vista is a 8" ??. may be we must mention "what's cool in vista". AFAIK the more noticeable new feature in vista is the new filesystem ups i forgot that they removed it, so vista just give directx10 (still a buggy and unsupported stuff).

And no, i don't think that it's the price, almost all windows are illegal copies, so if vista is still inpopular, you cannot blame the price since even people didn't installed for free.


Vista/Longhorn was never, ever going to have a new file system.
Quote this comment #9.3 Posted by whocares78 on 16 Aug 2007 - 07:49
Quote - (Brandon Live said @ #9.2)
Quote - (Magallanes said @ #9)
How can you say "Windows XP a 7 and vista is a 8" ??. may be we must mention "what's cool in vista". AFAIK the more noticeable new feature in vista is the new filesystem ups i forgot that they removed it, so vista just give directx10 (still a buggy and unsupported stuff).

And no, i don't think that it's the price, almost all windows are illegal copies, so if vista is still inpopular, you cannot blame the price since even people didn't installed for free.


Vista/Longhorn was never, ever going to have a new file system.


umm yeah it was, it was one of the main things MS was goign on about when they first srtarted talkign about vista/longhorm, in fact here is an article that tells you all about it
http://news.com.com/2009-1017-857509.html

did you even try and look it up
<