Mother's ire puts Ballmer on defense over Vista

For a few minutes during Microsoft Corp. CEO Steve Ballmer's appearance at the Gartner Inc. Symposium ITxpo conference here, emotionless management-speak gave way to a mother's frustration with the Vista operating system.

"I'm one of those early adopters of Vista," said Yvonne Genovese, an analyst who was interviewing Ballmer along with fellow analyst David Smith on stage at a conference forum. "My daughter comes in one day and says, 'Hey Mom, my friend has Vista, and it has these neat little things called gadgets -- I need those.'"

Said Ballmer: "I love your daughter."

"You're not going to like her mom in about two minutes," said Genovese, while the crowd laughed. She went on to explain that she installed Vista for her daughter -- and two days later went right back to using the XP operating system. "It's safe, it works, all the hardware is fine, and everything is great," she said of XP.

View: The full story
News source: ComputerWorld

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

IBM and Second Life to build 3D internet

Next Story

NeowinCAST News Edition for October 11, 2007

106 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

After reading this over (i.e. the comments), I think I have sort of changed my mind. I am beginning to believe that Microsoft should simply offer two products (for the desktop). This might be easier to do if they would reduce the number of versions of Vista to three (I am not counting Enterprise). This could be done by dropping Vista Home and instead offering something like Windows Classic. It would simply be the standard XP features and UI with a select number of real features backported (and not the limited set in SP3). In addition they could include the kernel for win2k3 as an option. Finally, the account could be either sandboxed instead of limited in security settings to provide a reduced chance that individuals could use unwise behavior to damage their base software install.

Features I would like to see included (given I run Vista already):
01). Win2k3 kernel like in the x64 version
02). Sandbox internet protection and secure encryption of MyDocs (with network access stripped away).
03). Search engine installed
04). Same lunar style them but with updated color schemes
05). Backup with a good implementation of Shadow Copy
06). Forget about the bloat (i.e. Windows Mail, Windows Movie Maker, Windows DVD Maker)

I of course realize that this will never happen. It is mostly due to technical issues (broken applications)...as well as the new paradigm being Vista. Oh well, here is to dreaming. Still by not having UAC enabled and most of the added features you would reduce compatibility programs and increased system responsiveness on lower end to high end hardware. This can actually all be done now except for enhanced Shadow Copy and the Win2k3 kernel.

Guys,

I think we have to give credit where it's due here to be honest. The reason so many people either rag on Vista, or refuse to adopt it prior to using it is due to the stability that Windows XP SP2 has brought to them. SP2 seems to have become a "nice and stable" OS environment for the majority of MS OS users.

Now fast forward to Vista. Offering little over it's predecessor that the average user wishes to have. OK, the enhanced media area is handy for some.

The issue is, how many people are going to jump from their 'stable' Operating System to a relatively untried OS until it becomes "bedded in".
Whilst I understand the reason behind a lot of IT Pro's problems with it (It was supposed to address a lot more XP issues and become a step forward than a step across), I think basically, Microsoft have done a half decent job with after sales support of XP, in terms of Service Packs at least, that many refuse to jump out of their warm bed and test the water.

Quite frankly, Microsoft have, in a roundabout way, and completely surprisingly, become a victim of their own success. Vista will thrive, I'm sure....but it will take a Service Pack (as is customary now) for users to let their guard down in what is already a "security scaremongering" market.

This is a common thread that I have seen with Vista PCs. I do have it on one that breaks these rules. Vista depends alot on the video card in the PC. GeForce 7000+ or ATI 1200+. Most people that bitch about Vista have Geforce 6150s. This is just from my experence with noticing a trend. Something that the human brain is designed to do find patterns. In the old days directx ran on top of the application layer. Now in vista applications run on top of directx in simple form. DX is closer to the kernel then APPs. So if you have a junk Video card it will bottle neck the whole process. UAC will slow down Vista by about 2-4% on a system not connected to a domain. Improper use of OS Shims are not the answer for all Software companys to get there old apps working on vista. Look that up if you don't know what that is. I wish they didn't make it that easy for companys to request shims for there products.

The video card is not going to bottleneck Vista at all. I would know, I used to have a GeForce FX 5500, and my applications run just as good now on my GeForce 8600 GTS as they did with my old 5500. So, saying that Vista depends a lot on video card is entirely untrue.

Why do stunts like this always seemed planned. Who gave this mother a script and, or talking points? Seriously folks, if you want to continue using Windows XP that is fine. Good. Though after reading many of the posts to this column I would swear that about a high percentage seem to think that Microsoft can't code and, or design. If you believe this, why stick with the platform? Why not just leave and find something that works better.

1). You could go download a number of Linux ISOs, a good place to look would be distro watch.
2). You could invest in a Mac and run OSX (or if you are somewhat more experienced, run in on a whitebox).
3). If you want the Win2k3 kernel but not Vista; try either Windows 2k3 Server and make some minor workstation modifications (just Google it) or install Windows XP x64. This might buy you another year or two of support beyond x86 Windows XP. Good luck with device drivers though, at least on x64 (as it is worse than Vista IMO).

Still, this changes little. Microsoft clearly has made their determination that Vista is the future (XP is slowly being phased out). This is not going to change. Microsoft has too much invested in Vista.

I'd be running 2K3 as a workstation if I could get SLI to work with it. Nvidia decided that didn't want to support 2K3 at all (they don't write drivers for it). You can install the XP drivers on a 2K3 machine, but you won't be able to enable SLI with it. Which sucks.

I'm sorry, and i HATE to be an "MS Fanboy," by anyone who only uses it for two days and gives up does not deserve to make comments on its "useability"... honestly, people.... give it a month before you throw it away.... good LORD! I bet if i asked them 5 questions that everyone should know about windows vista if they've "used it", they'd incorrectly answer 4 of them....

Furthermore, the only real "problems" are 1. it is sluggish, and it is improving with SP1 beta and 2. they've broken up the control panel into too many sections.... its harder to find things. But then, that's really not a huge problem, because if u want to find a setting to change in the control panel, all you have to do is use the search bar at the top of Windows Explorer. Simple as that. So ya, people are way too susceptible to "negative reviews" and are too "I want everything now and i dont think i should have to wait even 5 sseconds".... add an extra step, and people can't handle the change. Add two, and OMG theres an uproar. Here MS is trying to prevent people from getting spyware infested computers and people hate them for it... I challenge ANYONE who has had a negative experience with vista to 1. install it on a computer that MS says is vista capable or premium ready, and 2. Use it for ONE MONTH minimum, (preferably two), 3. Don't just give up when something doesn't work the way your used to. I guarantee that, even tho in the end you may still not like it, you'll AT LEAST have SOME positive experiences with it.

I'm still... uncertain about Vista. Heck I'm using it as my primary OS, and it does what I need and I don't really have much issue with it, but I've tasted the Ubuntu fruit and am awaiting the final release of Gusty. I've seen the other side and I like it, but I'm not ready to switch just yet.

Doesn't help much the Ubuntu forums/community is full of zealots who seem to think Vista BSODs every second minute or something. Doesn't for me, but you can't convince a lot of them of reason. God, I wish I could be free of FUD from ALL sides, you know?

At first Vista was a nightmare, but as time has gone by it has got better and more reliable. There are still bugs but there was plenty of bugs in XP for long enough. When I upgraded to XP from 98 it took a hardware upgrade to get it running right and it's just the same from XP to Vista. btw, I have never seen a BSOD with Vista.

I heard you whine and complain directly at your computer monitor,

Vista voice recognition will downgrade the OS back to XP SP2!

Gadgets? Yahoo, Google and a few other companies offer the same as software.
Want the visual effects? Get Windowblinds.
??? Buy Vista.

PROFIT!

I remember back in 1999 when OSX was coming about (or was it 2000? I cant remeber when it went out of beta) and nothing worked on it and all the Mac lovers where ****ed they couldn't do much and how they had to switch to "classic" to run apps and all that fun stuff.... oh those where the days... when you couldn't even run photoshop with out going to classic...

neufuse said,
I remember back in 1999 when OSX was coming about (or was it 2000? I cant remeber when it went out of beta) and nothing worked on it and all the Mac lovers where ****ed they couldn't do much and how they had to switch to "classic" to run apps and all that fun stuff.... oh those where the days... when you couldn't even run photoshop with out going to classic...

So true. It seems, and i've said this many times, that many people have very short memories when it comes to OSs.

When everyone used 98 and Win2k first came out, same problems. Poor driver support, games ran slow, and so on.

When people started to move to Win2k and XP first came out. "WTFX, XP is a POS, Stupid Fisher Price OS!" Also had poor support until around SP1, and never really got good until SP2.

So now we have Vista, and people will yet again fall into this same cycle and moan about the same things.

Oh, and Vista needing more resorces? Yeah, nothing new there. Win2k, for me anyways, needed 256MB to run nice and smooth. XP needed 512MB, so now Vista needs 1GB, or more (depending on what you do), but people seem to throw a fit about it now. *shrug*. Oh, and btw, before you bitch about Windows needing more RAM and HDD space, or a faster CPU, I think you'd need to look at PC games and some other multimedia/3D apps that need more RAM and CPU and HDD with every new version out. Yet, hell, if a game needs 1GB or 2GB, it's ok right? Cuz hell, it's a game. =)

I wish to known how many PRODUCTIVE people agreed with Vista over XP.

To spend more money and to slowness or burdening a simple process (complex configuration, annoying messages, incompatibilities with programs and such) is fairly to be called a productive boost.

So, besides fanboy issues, would anyone look plainly at the 'shortcomings' of Vista? are we to acknowledge that there are issues?
I have been testing Vista since its beginning via MSDN and use Vista ultimate today. Vista is not the great change that was needed in the evolution of the platform. It does bring several features to the table that were mainly catch up to other operating systems and although it runs fine in high end machines, it does poorly on middle of the range machines or recent legacy ones.

Mind you, I use Vista, I don't think it is the source of all bashing, but I do feel that the value, as Mr Ballmer likes to call it, is not necessarily higher than XP. I have a high end machine with top of the line memory, latest core 2 duo extreme, SATA hard drives and a top end Nvidia card. Yet, I have managed to get several blue screens, many crashes of the windows explorer engine and several slow downs due to who knows what reason (I mainly use Adobe software, office and IE as a browser, no crazy games, mods, configuration changing software or such, basically a clean install from what appears are respectable brands)

I have all the updates that MS has released (still waiting for my ultimate goodies) yet the system is often slow and it does a lot of hard drive trashing.

So I ask, without getting into bashing, what are the benefits that an average user will see in Vista? for the price.

Even MS own software, such as Windows movie maker crashes more than often on Vista (not only on my machine). Give me proper basic applications to do my digital work (Windows photo gallery is slow and lacks finesse from a user interface point of view IMHO) the calendar and address book application don't talk to anything else, they don't even sync with window mobile devices, windows mail does not do HTTP mail, so I have to download Windows live mail (why should I? one application should suffice, make it simple, clean and efficient to use the OS) MS did not bother to produce a good batch of professionally made gadgets, so the gadgets bar goes mainly un-utilized, as most of the gadgets on the windows live site crash, fail to work or just look plain ugly (after all, I am having to buy all these new equipment so i can run AERO and have a stylish, modern interface, not?) I have 4 gigs of memory, yet the system feels like it lacks memory (this is not only my experience, but that of several designers I work with who decided to try Vista as their main OS to avoid the cost of a Mac Pro).

We should be able to talk about what in Vista does not meet the expectations of a modern OS or even the jump from XP to Vista. Is it an upgrade or one of those updates Apple does to OSX?

Just wondering.

Foub said,
I think that he already has.....

I would have done it to the music of his "Developers" song on Youtube

Developers! *punch* Developers! *punch* Developers! *punch* Developers! *punch*

I was an early adopter as well. I know exactly how she feels. BTW, as I have constantly been stating, I have around 25 years experience with M$' OSes so I'm far from being a noobie on this sort of thing so the apologists can just STFU.

After all the topics and debates regarding Vista, ive not yet said that im a Vista user, and i'll never consider going back to XP. Originally i beta tested the OS when it was in beta testing and i wasnt impressed, but it was kinda unfair to judge the product then. I decided to gamble and buy the final release and it paid off, i couldnt be happier with this operating system. Its become a trend or hobby for some to bash Vista and Microsoft but i guess like a lot of things, you either love it or you hate it... I wish people would just say they do or do not like it, instead of wasting time and space going into detail about how good or bad it is. People have their own experiences of where it lacks and exceeds, it doesnt represent the quality and whole experience of the OS itself.

it's been a year now and every week someone who i have never heard of get's the change to say on the neowin front page she/he went back to xp. get over it already

ecotrojan said,
can I jump on the TROLL bandwagon too and slate M$ Vista..


Pls oh pls !!

yawn

Sorry, I don't think there is much room left for you to get on. You are welcome to look for a seat though.

draklin said,

Sorry, I don't think there is much room left for you to get on. You are welcome to look for a seat though.


lol

is it like musical chairs ? with the Apple fanfair in the background?

On a side note, members pointing out that other members are fanboys, effectively starting a mini-war against fanboys, is stupid and off-topic.

(Back on-topic)
Simply put:
If you like XP and want to stick with it, then do so.
If you like Vista and want to stick with it, then do so.
If you like Mac and want to stick with it, then do so.
If you like Linux and want to stick with it, then do so.

Bottom line - don't say the OS is a horrible OS just because of your experience. While there are many that do indeed dislike Vista because it didn't work as expected, there doesn't need to be a "Vista Haters" gang or something... There is already enough hatred both outside and inside cyberspace. Why bring more into cyberspace, flooding the Web with things like "Vista sucks" or "Vista is ME2". Things may not straighten out with Vista, but I'm sure MS has already gotten enough complaints to understand that they should try harder next time to fulfill their customers' wishes.

Just my thoughts...

What a jerk that guy Ballmer is? Is this the best person Gates can find? What sort of comment is that quote "I love your daughter" unquote. What a freakin' DH. You don't know her daughter. And whats with this word "VALUE" he kept spurting during the debate. I don't see any VALUE is Vista - it's so over priced it's ridiculous. You know this guy is the last person I'd want in the public eye for my company - Microsoft have a tough battle ahead to win the hearts and minds of people on Vista and with this guy at the helm they are heading towards a product and PR disaster.

leo_the_lion said,
What a jerk that guy Ballmer is? Is this the best person Gates can find? What sort of comment is that quote "I love your daughter" unquote. What a freakin' DH. You don't know her daughter. And whats with this word "VALUE" he kept spurting during the debate. I don't see any VALUE is Vista - it's so over priced it's ridiculous. You know this guy is the last person I'd want in the public eye for my company - Microsoft have a tough battle ahead to win the hearts and minds of people on Vista and with this guy at the helm they are heading towards a product and PR disaster.

Oh he LOVES her daughter alright, wants to, if you know what I mean, wink wink nudge nudge say no more?
Nods as good as a wink to a blind bat eh

Too many stupid people get the title of Analyst in computing today. They know feck all when it comes to it.

I need Vista! The drivers don't exist wah! Bad MS! Back to XP.

Just wait until you know your hardware is supported before bitching and blaming everyone bar the actual manufacturers.

I am an IT Implementer. I certainly see her point of view. There are so many things in the business side of things like administration, incompatable software, proprietary software, drivers, that simply make it difficult to change operating systems. Note, that I did not mention Vista. That fact has been true for every generation of OS that has been released.

Simply put, upgrading a business/enterprise enviroment is a pain, no matter what OS it is.

I chose to wait 6 months to make the switch to vista. This was so that application updates and drivers would have time to mature. No matter how much work MS does, some hw people wait until the OS is released before they start the real serious work.

I am currently running two systems with Vista. Both are x64 home premium editions. The only thing I had to do was disable UAC in order for my older applications (call of duty2 and "the all seeing eye".)

I am pleased with what vista brings to the table. Most of the issues that I have are things that will be addressed by SP1. That mainly has to do with how invasive UAC tends to be.

All you guys talking about SP1, what about the reviews of SP1 that say it doesn't really solve anything?. How about that?.

And before you spout off at me, I didn't write the darn reviews. Just Google it, I don't have links. I'm just very curious what you all will be saying when you possibly find out SP1 doesn't do much good.

First off, Vista SP1 is still beta just like XP SP3 is. Secondly, SP1 isn't supposed to be a miracle worker.

From what I've seen and tried of SP1, it's looking really good. I was able to run it with no problems. The install and uninstall process was both clean and smooth.

So, stop reading Chris Pirillo's blog and see for yourself.

The patches for performance and compatibility have already made a HUGE difference and those will be rolled up into SP1. So assuming additional fixes don't break anything permanently, SP1 will bring Vista back to the place where we can all bitch about the things that we would normally be bitching about.

I don't use Vista. I use XP (and would preferably) use Windows 2003 as my desktop.

I think these kinds of feedback from an analyst is great especially in front of the CEO/President. Not because it 'damages' MS reputation or puts down Vista. But people have had problem with Vista. MS tries to hide this with their marketing. This is a good way of telling everyone it isn't always like that and the CEO might kick some butt to get everything fixed.

DrunkenMaster said,
I don't use Vista. I use XP (and would preferably) use Windows 2003 as my desktop.

I think these kinds of feedback from an analyst is great especially in front of the CEO/President. Not because it 'damages' MS reputation or puts down Vista. But people have had problem with Vista. MS tries to hide this with their marketing. This is a good way of telling everyone it isn't always like that and the CEO might kick some butt to get everything fixed.

You do know that Vista is a newer version of Windows 2003 right?

Tries to hide what exactly? Every new tech product has a good possibility of having bugs and being unstable. Any early adopter of technology can tell you this. Whether it's the 360, or even the "A grade quality" Apple products, it's something all new technology faces.

Love how the article doesn't even explain why she went back to XP. My guess is she either installed it on a pc that barely ran XP, or just didn't bother to find the latest drivers. Granted WU has drivers, but, apparently some h/w manufacturers are choosing not to put them up.

You have to pay a fee to MS (and from what I hear it's expensive) to test the driver to clear and get it official signed by MS. I can see why a lot will wait till latter revision even though it may be work now. This per specific driver version you submit for testing.

Makes sense now. So, apparently, it's MS's fault. lol Guess they have to cover the cost of testing the drivers on many machine's, etc.

On older hardware XP runs much better (especially gaming) then vista with the same hardware.
There still a lot of hardware driver issues.
MS is still putting out patches that make Vista much faster, more compatible, and more responsive over all.

DX10 will be upgraded to DX10.1 which is suppose to fix a lot performance issues too... aka growing pains of a new tech and early adopters are being feed a bunch of BS about how much better it is (now), I'll wait for dx10.1 video hardware before considering the newer dx10 games that don't run with dx compatible layer.

I do see vista being a lot better (even on older hardware) at least a year from now.

I just wonder how many people who state as fact that Vista is slow and buggy and terrible, have actually used it. Its like the game console fanboy, I've never played a PS3, but it sucks, and its not good, blah, blah, blah. I understand that some people prefer XP and some people prefer Vista, but if you've never used said OS, don't just copy what you hear from other sites and claim it as your own. If you are going to upgrade to Vista to rate it, take the time to give it a chance. Don't install it on a piece of crap computer and expect it to work. Also, if you don't want to use it, just shut up, stay with XP and seriously, shut up.

In other realted news, does anyone notice that our buddy Daniel F. seems just a little biased against Vista. Everyday, I log onto Neowin to browse the news and almost always there is an article slamming Vista and its usually posted by Daniel. Lets not forget his ultra-controversial "Editorial" about Vista and RAM a couple months back. I mean, its just bad, bad, bad, is there no good news at ALL about Vista?

Just for reference, I upgrade to Vista on all my machines in Jan. So far, I've experience over 400% less blue screens of death than XP. So maybe I'm a bit biased, but at least I use the OS...

The same could be said, "if you like Vista just shut up" I have tried Vista (for free) using the evaluation version, Microsoft have kindly made the 30 day reactivation possible adinfinitum (no doubt deliberately), I still abandoned it, and will not bother any time soon. Well done Ms. Genovese, you are my hero. Perhaps Mr Ballmer will eventually start
listening to customers. BTW, even developers at Microsoft were admitting that Vista would take a year to complete after
the announced RTM. People running Vista have just been beta testers so far. What a surprise, some are happy some are not! As for SP1 whenever it's arrival it will not change much. Many people just don't like Vista, the same went for ME.

Customers are king, whatever Ballmer or Chrono951 says!

Chrono951 said,
I just wonder how many people who state as fact that Vista is slow and buggy and terrible, have actually used it. Its like the game console fanboy, I've never played a PS3, but it sucks, and its not good, blah, blah, blah. I understand that some people prefer XP and some people prefer Vista, but if you've never used said OS, don't just copy what you hear from other sites and claim it as your own. If you are going to upgrade to Vista to rate it, take the time to give it a chance. Don't install it on a piece of crap computer and expect it to work. Also, if you don't want to use it, just shut up, stay with XP and seriously, shut up.

In other realted news, does anyone notice that our buddy Daniel F. seems just a little biased against Vista. Everyday, I log onto Neowin to browse the news and almost always there is an article slamming Vista and its usually posted by Daniel. Lets not forget his ultra-controversial "Editorial" about Vista and RAM a couple months back. I mean, its just bad, bad, bad, is there no good news at ALL about Vista?

Just for reference, I upgrade to Vista on all my machines in Jan. So far, I've experience over 400% less blue screens of death than XP. So maybe I'm a bit biased, but at least I use the OS...


You sound exactly like those game console fanboys who defend their PS2 like they are defending their mothers. You're doing that right now. How do you know how long they've used it before they come to the conclusion that Vista has major issues for them? How do you know they have a crap computer that wont run it? You know none of these things yet you use them in your argument exaclty like a fanboy would. Oh and this little gem:
Chrono951 said,
Also, if you don't want to use it, just shut up, stay with XP and seriously, shut up.

That is classic asinine fanboy speak.. Dude, look in the mirror and behold the fanboy that is you.

Chrono951 said,
I've experience over 400% less blue screens of death than XP. So maybe I'm a bit biased, but at least I use the OS...

That would mean that you've had at least one blue screen of death with Vista :\

I realize that Microsoft has spent a lot of time making Vista better stability-wise, but you can't compare how many times your system has had a complete crash from one OS to another.

simon360 said,

That would mean that you've had at least one blue screen of death with Vista :

I realize that Microsoft has spent a lot of time making Vista better stability-wise, but you can't compare how many times your system has had a complete crash from one OS to another.

Why isn't a system crash (blue screen) a good comparison between OSs? Isn't the big, number 1 problem with Windows, when talking from a Unix/Linux users point of view, that it always crashes and isn't stable?

If you were getting BSOD with XPSP2 on a semi-reguler basis for whatever odd reason, but don't get any in Vista. Isn't that a valid comparison that shows Vista is more stable?

Chrono951 said,
I just wonder how many people who state as fact that Vista is slow and buggy and terrible, have actually used it. Its like the game console fanboy, I've never played a PS3, but it sucks, and its not good, blah, blah, blah. I understand that some people prefer XP and some people prefer Vista, but if you've never used said OS, don't just copy what you hear from other sites and claim it as your own. If you are going to upgrade to Vista to rate it, take the time to give it a chance. Don't install it on a piece of crap computer and expect it to work. Also, if you don't want to use it, just shut up, stay with XP and seriously, shut up.

In other realted news, does anyone notice that our buddy Daniel F. seems just a little biased against Vista. Everyday, I log onto Neowin to browse the news and almost always there is an article slamming Vista and its usually posted by Daniel. Lets not forget his ultra-controversial "Editorial" about Vista and RAM a couple months back. I mean, its just bad, bad, bad, is there no good news at ALL about Vista?

Just for reference, I upgrade to Vista on all my machines in Jan. So far, I've experience over 400% less blue screens of death than XP. So maybe I'm a bit biased, but at least I use the OS...


OK you want a REAL review of Vista Ultimate? I've had my laptop for about 4 months now, pretty good system not the top of the line model but a step down, Core2 Duo 1.7, 2gb RAM. Vista to this day with all updates is still slow and unstable. Yes you might get less BSOD's but how many times a day does explorer or some other Windows system crash a say? foe me Explorer crashes just about daily sometimes just for opening Computer, sometimes, Control Panel crashes it. Even with all the updates it will take ~5 minutes for the thing to shutdown. Gaming? SLOW, DX10 why? Half Life 2, slow if it's in any resolution higher than default, same with Halo2, WoW a fairly low requirement kinda game, slow dismal FPS compared to my Desktop when it had XP, and even bad compared to playing WoW on Linux using Wine emulation.

UAC is STILL annoying, why do I have to tell my system 3 times I want to empty my Recycle bin. File transfers? takes Windows longer to guess how long it's going to take than to make most transfers, who would have known USB2 was too fast for Vista. I can add more but I think I got my point across, unless all you do is check webmail and browse 2-3 websites, Vista is not for you, if you maybe turn on your PC once or twice a week Vista is for you, Vista is not for an average user period.

z0phi3l said,
UAC is STILL annoying, why do I have to tell my system 3 times I want to empty my Recycle bin. File transfers? takes Windows longer to guess how long it's going to take than to make most transfers, who would have known USB2 was too fast for Vista. I can add more but I think I got my point across, unless all you do is check webmail and browse 2-3 websites, Vista is not for you, if you maybe turn on your PC once or twice a week Vista is for you, Vista is not for an average user period.

UAC doesn't even give any prompts when you empty the Recycle Bin...

This is nothing new. People said the same exact things about 98 and XP. Just more sensationalist media coverage.

Someone installed Vista than switched back to XP? The twist this time, HER DAUGHTER RECOMMENDED IT!!!!! :O :O

Seriously how many more times do we need to hear this?

Yep,
Took me EXACTLY 2 days also to blow VistaMe2 off both the machines I installed it on. It ran fine on both. it just plain sucks!!
MS should be sued for releasing an OS with such unsupported third party stuff after all those delays. The want to rule the world in desktop OS's and then do that. Screw 'em!!


In fact,
Just finished installing the brandy new Linux Zenwalk 4.8 on one machine of mine.

cork1958 said,
Yep,
Took me EXACTLY 2 days also to blow VistaMe2 off both the machines I installed it on. It ran fine on both. it just plain sucks!!
MS should be sued for releasing an OS with such unsupported third party stuff after all those delays. The want to rule the world in desktop OS's and then do that. Screw 'em!!


In fact,
Just finished installing the brandy new Linux Zenwalk 4.8 on one machine of mine. :)

Wow, just... WOW! I mean you basically said it yourself right there. "unsupported third party stuff". Since when has it been the OS creaters job to support EVERY 3rd party apps/device out there? The fact MS supports as many things as they do is great, and why windows is where it is today.

Are you trying to say it's MS's job to write dedicated HP Printer drivers? Or nVidia Geforce drivers for Windows? Because from what you've writen above, that's pretty much what it sounds like you're saying. *sigh*, wakeup man, that's NOT how it works.

So you installed Linux, yay for you, does the linux distro you used have anything outside of generic device drivers for your hardware? And what specific drivers it does have, for ATi or nVidia or Creative hardware, were those writen by the OSs distro people? Because I really don't think that's the case.

"It's safe, it works, all the hardware is fine, and everything is great," she said of XP.

Yes, so? Why did you even consider Vista, then? If your daughter wanted sidebar gadgets, why the hell did you change the whole OS and not just install something that give one some gadgets? Is she seriously saying she purchased something for like $200-$300 to get some "cool" gadgets for her daughter?

Sure, Vista could work better with drivers, but it has been out for a year, that is apparently enough for some vendors, but not others. If she's this weird in making her decisions and diving headfirst into new operating systems to get some damn gadgets, why don't they sell their computer and purchase a Mac. I heard OS X supported gadgets, and it's working great for many, especially those who can't accept hardware incompatibilities in new operating systems and want the hw to "just work", can accept a high price tag, and don't need the same software choice.

Jugalator said,

Yes, so? Why did you even consider Vista, then? If your daughter wanted sidebar gadgets, why the hell did you change the whole OS and not just install something that give one some gadgets? Is she seriously saying she purchased something for like $200-$300 to get some "cool" gadgets for her daughter?

Sure, Vista could work better with drivers, but it has been out for a year, that is apparently enough for some vendors, but not others. If she's this weird in making her decisions and diving headfirst into new operating systems to get some damn gadgets, why don't they sell their computer and purchase a Mac. I heard OS X supported gadgets, and it's working great for many, especially those who can't accept hardware incompatibilities in new operating systems and want the hw to "just work", can accept a high price tag, and don't need the same software choice.

To be honest, Mac is just as bad as Windows Vista. Except for its hardware and the OS kernel, other bits of OS X isnt that really friendly. I have used Mac since MacOS 8 till now and the best OS i used is still MacOS 9.x

yeah...I'll write a story about all the people I know that tried Linux and didnt like it...or how I moved from OSX back to a PC in under a month......it will NEVER make frontpage news.

Shinigami said,
yeah...I'll write a story about all the people I know that tried Linux and didnt like it...or how I moved from OSX back to a PC in under a month......it will NEVER make frontpage news.

OS X to PC?

You're either:

A big-time gamer

A tinkerer

<snipped - rule 5>

<snipped - rule 5>

I for one like Vista now that the patches and driver updates have fixed almost all the early hiccups. But I still believe it was rushed to market, is WAY overpriced given the lack of actual new features (despite Ballmer's MBA 101 spin), and it was a HUGE mistake to release it in a ridiculous EIGHT versions.

Microsoft treated Vista as their monopoly delivering the messiah of operating systems, and therefore Vista's been quite rightly crucified. SP1 will see the resurrection of Vista so I expect that by NEXT Christmas we won't be having this discussion anymore.

excalpius said,
FINALLY, someone has started "snipping" LTD. Yay! Thank you "PureLegend". :)

. . . which has absolutely no bearing on future remarks made by me.

But at least it made you happy.

LTD said,

OS X to PC?

You're either:

A big-time gamer

A tinkerer

<snipped - rule 5>

LMao you mean not a graphic designer amased you finally admitted PC's are better

Whoa! Main news!

Good thing that no one can find any frustrated users of any other operating system, other than Vista! This IS the sure sign of doom for Vista and Microsoft!!

Citrusleak said,
Loving my vista ultimate 64 bit. Runs my games great, plus DX10!

I have Vista Ultimate x64 as well and i dislike DX10 as well as how DX9 games run in there. I am a 3D artist and a casual MMO gamer and seeing Vista is a threat to my work and entertainment life. Even with 4GB of RAM isnt sufficient for me.

This article made me laugh so hard on Ballmer said how much value its added in Vista..

I bought Quake Wars Ennemy Territory and was shocked to see that to use it under Vista you need 50% more power than XP. That is just to crazy!

Pip'

Pippin666 said,
I bought Quake Wars Ennemy Territory and was shocked to see that to use it under Vista you need 50% more power than XP. That is just to crazy!

Pip'

HAHAHA! I saw a UFO and it picked me up with it's mind powers and flattened my crops!
Seriously, I dare you to prove or disprove either statement.

Azmodan said,

SP3 will have SP1 and a few of Vista features, so no thanks, keep your SP1 :)

It will? Wasn't aware XP was turning into Vista with SP3.

People are so hypocritical these days.

xiphi said,

It will? Wasn't aware XP was turning into Vista with SP3.

People are so hypocritical these days.

LOL. That's how MS is now going to spread Vista. It's going to hide it in SP3 so people unwittingly install it. Then it will demand that you activate your copy of "Vista XP."

toadeater said,

LOL. That's how MS is now going to spread Vista. It's going to hide it in SP3 so people unwittingly install it. Then it will demand that you activate your copy of "Vista XP."

That's actually quite a load of crap.

I can't give details due to NDA, but suffice it to say SP3 for XP does nothing to make it anything like Vista.

think that just says it all , i know loads of people at work and friends that have done this , vista is just not worth it.

Fubar said,
vista is just not worth it.

Yeah, but I would add "yet" to that sentence. I'll be waiting for SP1 to try it again.

miguel_montes said,

Yeah, but I would add "yet" to that sentence. I'll be waiting for SP1 to try it again.

personally even when sp1 comes out for it there is still no point or need for it , 2009 see's the next one come out according to their road map unless it turns out like the vista time table it adds nothing to what xp can do , the only differance is it needs more resources to run which is just pathetic , no OS should need to use that much no matter how crappy the gui is, personaly for me and i said this to my mates before it was even launched its just gonna be the Modern ME of its day , and it basicly has been so far SP1 might solve some problems but i doubt it will solve the main problem of it being a complete pain in the arse to use

Fubar said,

personally even when sp1 comes out for it there is still no point or need for it , 2009 see's the next one come out according to their road map unless it turns out like the vista time table it adds nothing to what xp can do , the only differance is it needs more resources to run which is just pathetic , no OS should need to use that much no matter how crappy the gui is, personaly for me and i said this to my mates before it was even launched its just gonna be the Modern ME of its day , and it basicly has been so far SP1 might solve some problems but i doubt it will solve the main problem of it being a complete pain in the arse to use

2010 is the year, and that is if they actually meet the target this time, Vista was planned for 2003 originally.

Fubar said,
think that just says it all , i know loads of people at work and friends that have done this , vista is just not worth it.

arghh!!.. why are the recent posts in neowin are spoiling the image of vista like hell??...
vista is working perfectly fine for me..
I've no issues till now.. People who are working with it should know how to use it rather than to complain..
Even a microwave comes with an instruction manual..why wont people try the operating system and then talk about it??..

syncvichu said,

arghh!!.. why are the recent posts in neowin are spoiling the image of vista like hell??...
vista is working perfectly fine for me..
I've no issues till now.. People who are working with it should know how to use it rather than to complain..
Even a microwave comes with an instruction manual..why wont people try the operating system and then talk about it??..

sorry but i did state it was my own opinion from fixing peoples vista machines and having them telling me they wernt happy with the OS compared to XP it may work fine for you and others but it doesnt work well for other people and there seems to be alot of them , why do people have to constantly back something up when people have had a differant experiance with the OS is beyond me , 4 customers i know have even taken their laptops back and asked for xp instead of vista because its to slow to use and uses to much system resources its their own choice at the end of the day

syncvichu said,

arghh!!.. why are the recent posts in neowin are spoiling the image of vista like hell??...
vista is working perfectly fine for me..
I've no issues till now.. People who are working with it should know how to use it rather than to complain..
Even a microwave comes with an instruction manual..why wont people try the operating system and then talk about it??..

Spoiling the *image* of Vista? What kind of image/reputation is that exactly?

That for some inexplicable reason the registry still exists? That for some inexplicable reason you have to know *how* to use it? Why do you need instructions for something that's supposed to make your life easier? Microsoft can't code and can't design. If they could do either, we'd have a completely rewritten OS today that if nothing else, is based on Unix, not spaghetti code.

This is the same outfit that in 2001, shipped Windows XP with 5 open ports. It's a case of having too many resources without enough brain cells to rub together. Do yourself a favour: Get a Mac, and play games on a console. At least you still have the option of installing Windows if for some reason you feel the need to inflict pain on yourself.

When a sizable percentage of your userbase doesn't want to use, or continue to use, your latest and greatest (so-called) OS, it isn't that they're stupid or ill-equipped to handle the software. It's a case of something that is VERY WRONG with your product.

And for those of you who are about to say that XP went through the same thing when it was released and we have nothing to worry about, my question is this: You think XP was ever actually good???

That for some inexplicable reason the registry still exists?

Inexplicable? It's a centralized database for per-user and per-machine settings. It allows for registered components, and it's fast and pretty easy to distribute changes to.

LTD said,
Spoiling the *image* of Vista? What kind of image/reputation is that exactly?

That for some inexplicable reason the registry still exists? That for some inexplicable reason you have to know *how* to use it? Why do you need instructions for something that's supposed to make your life easier? Microsoft can't code and can't design. If they could do either, we'd have a completely rewritten OS today that if nothing else, is based on Unix, not spaghetti code.

MS is getting enough flak for the changes they implemented in Vista. You'd think tossing away the current codebase and building on top of Unix is some overnight magic solution?

If only MS can be like Apple and simply send a "tough ****" message to technology they supported only years ago.

Lebsoljah said,
All you bunch of idiots can do is complain... I guess it's heathy knowing that Windows XP's success is based on customer complaints.

Don't push it

So true, XP before SP1 had it's own load of problems, but peoples memory when it comes to software and OSs seems to be pretty short. XP with SP1 still had problems also, hence the big changes they made with SP2, and, OMG, guess what? People bitched and moaned about SP2 for XP! I think we all remember how, probably the same people who are bitching about Vista right now, also bitched and moaned about XP SP2. "I'll never install that, XPSP1 is perfect!". Or so the story went.

SP2 in XP made core changes that broke some apps and compatibility, but it was what was needed and what people wanted, yet people still tossed a fit.

Now MS makes core changes to Vista that are needed and good in the longrun, yet people still moan and throw a fit because some app they used doesn't work anymore. It's a no win situation for MS at this point. Apple can say to hell with their crap of and OS that was 9 and older, and build something on top of Unix because they have such a small market, and the platform is so tightlly controlled they don't have to worry about all the different hardware out there. MS can't do the same.

And why build something ontop of Unix? The NT core and the kernel itself is stable and solid. The problems lie with other layers on top, that for better or worse MS decided to make the way they did for compatibility reasons. Yet when they decide to break away from that in the name of Security (like the new device driver model which helps with stability for one), which means compatibility takes a hit, people still toss a fit regardless.

YOu can't have it both ways, and totally dumping the NT codebase and making something new, guess what that gives you? ZERO compatibility with your current apps and hardware. New drivers will have to be made, and apps would have to be recoded. So, do you really want to have a new OS with basically zero support, or a better version of Windows with some minor hicups when it comes to a few drivers and apps?

MioTheGreat said,

Inexplicable? It's a centralized database for per-user and per-machine settings. It allows for registered components, and it's fast and pretty easy to distribute changes to.

My favorite is example is how people despise the registry but then don't consider gnome or kde's hundreds-of-subdirectories-filled-with-hundreds-of-subdirectories-filled-with-xml-files to be at all cumbersome or hard to navigate.

I'm not going to defend the registry other than to say it seems to be the inevitable consequence of any sufficiently complicated operating system, that you end up with a huge centralized config database somewhere.

LTD said,

Spoiling the *image* of Vista? What kind of image/reputation is that exactly?

That for some inexplicable reason the registry still exists? That for some inexplicable reason you have to know *how* to use it? Why do you need instructions for something that's supposed to make your life easier? Microsoft can't code and can't design. If they could do either, we'd have a completely rewritten OS today that if nothing else, is based on Unix, not spaghetti code.

This is the same outfit that in 2001, shipped Windows XP with 5 open ports. It's a case of having too many resources without enough brain cells to rub together. Do yourself a favour: Get a Mac, and play games on a console. At least you still have the option of installing Windows if for some reason you feel the need to inflict pain on yourself.

When a sizable percentage of your userbase doesn't want to use, or continue to use, your latest and greatest (so-called) OS, it isn't that they're stupid or ill-equipped to handle the software. It's a case of something that is VERY WRONG with your product.

And for those of you who are about to say that XP went through the same thing when it was released and we have nothing to worry about, my question is this: You think XP was ever actually good???

Yes I should buy a Mac and a console (total investment, about $2000) because some guy on the internet dosen't like Vista, even tho on MY system (which is worth about $500) it runs fine and hey, I can play games too. If only Apple could come up with a computer that could do that

GP007 said,
Now MS makes core changes to Vista that are needed and good in the longrun, yet people still moan and throw a fit because some app they used doesn't work anymore. It's a no win situation for MS at this point. Apple can say to hell with their crap of and OS that was 9 and older, and build something on top of Unix because they have such a small market, and the platform is so tightlly controlled they don't have to worry about all the different hardware out there. MS can't do the same.

That's a pretty misleading statement. I by no means mean to sound like an Apple fanboy here, but if you check many OS X 10.4 (Tiger) installations, you'll notice that they have a "Classic" Mac OS 9 emulator. It wasn't 100% perfect, from what I hear, but it was pretty good. As for supporting different builds of hardware, you're only partially right. Because Apple controls the hardware layout of their systems it means that there is less variety of hardware builds than in the PC world, but it doesn't mean that there's no variation at all. Further, Apple has done some massive moves in terms of hardware - the oldest Macs used to run on Motola's 68K processor architecture. When Apple switched over to IBM's Power line of processors, they included an emulator for the 68K applications. Similarly, now that Apple has switched over to x86-based processors, they've included an emulator (Rosetta) for being able to run applications made for the Power systems.

Your statement that Apple says "to hell with it" implies that Apple completely tossed their legacy applications to the wind. It's simply not true. I'm aware that Windows XP, and possibly Vista, did include options to run programs in "compatibility mode" with earlier Windows versions. Personally, I've never had any real issues with compatibility, either. However, I do expect that Microsoft should work to maintain some form of compatibility, even if it has to be through an emulator.

YOu can't have it both ways, and totally dumping the NT codebase and making something new, guess what that gives you? ZERO compatibility with your current apps and hardware. New drivers will have to be made, and apps would have to be recoded.

Initial new drivers have to be made regardless of the code base. Also, your zero compatibility claim is bunk, as I mentioned earlier. See Mac OS X (UNIX-based) vs. Mac OS 9 (not UNIX-based).

LTD said,

Spoiling the *image* of Vista? What kind of image/reputation is that exactly?

That for some inexplicable reason the registry still exists? That for some inexplicable reason you have to know *how* to use it? Why do you need instructions for something that's supposed to make your life easier? Microsoft can't code and can't design. If they could do either, we'd have a completely rewritten OS today that if nothing else, is based on Unix, not spaghetti code.

This is the same outfit that in 2001, shipped Windows XP with 5 open ports. It's a case of having too many resources without enough brain cells to rub together. Do yourself a favour: Get a Mac, and play games on a console. At least you still have the option of installing Windows if for some reason you feel the need to inflict pain on yourself.

When a sizable percentage of your userbase doesn't want to use, or continue to use, your latest and greatest (so-called) OS, it isn't that they're stupid or ill-equipped to handle the software. It's a case of something that is VERY WRONG with your product.

And for those of you who are about to say that XP went through the same thing when it was released and we have nothing to worry about, my question is this: You think XP was ever actually good???

Leave the past.. Check out XP,
XP is the most stable system.. and its being used by many users.. Microsoft can design and make a good stable system.. I admit that XP didn't take off well..but after Microsoft fixed its glitches by releasing service packs.. it worked perfectly for everyone.. The same is gonna happen for Vista.. all vista needs is time and fixing up certain issues...I'm sure it will make many users happy..and MAC users just cant comment about vista.. there are only sizable MAC users all over the world and the number of comments/critics MAC get is less, compared to vista or XP.. so, its obviously becomes difficult for Microsoft to address all those issues..

syncvichu said,

arghh!!.. why are the recent posts in neowin are spoiling the image of vista like hell??...
vista is working perfectly fine for me..
I've no issues till now.. People who are working with it should know how to use it rather than to complain..
Even a microwave comes with an instruction manual..why wont people try the operating system and then talk about it??..

cause you are one of the few, that have hardware that supported and software thats supported, SIMPLE as that, it's not about knowing how to use it, hell it's windows it's not hard to use

so you have problems with it now ???

LTD said,

Spoiling the *image* of Vista? What kind of image/reputation is that exactly?

That for some inexplicable reason the registry still exists? That for some inexplicable reason you have to know *how* to use it? Why do you need instructions for something that's supposed to make your life easier? Microsoft can't code and can't design. If they could do either, we'd have a completely rewritten OS today that if nothing else, is based on Unix, not spaghetti code.

This is the same outfit that in 2001, shipped Windows XP with 5 open ports. It's a case of having too many resources without enough brain cells to rub together. Do yourself a favour: Get a Mac, and play games on a console. At least you still have the option of installing Windows if for some reason you feel the need to inflict pain on yourself.

When a sizable percentage of your userbase doesn't want to use, or continue to use, your latest and greatest (so-called) OS, it isn't that they're stupid or ill-equipped to handle the software. It's a case of something that is VERY WRONG with your product.

And for those of you who are about to say that XP went through the same thing when it was released and we have nothing to worry about, my question is this: You think XP was ever actually good???

same old crap you alwasy say. all i can say is i have seen more issues with macs than PC's recently, adn you can'ty stick all versions of windwos under one giant umbrealla, hell do you want us to go on about MACOS being the same as OSX, i din't think so.

XP is good NOW, if you arge that then you simply have no idea what your talking about.

whocares78 said,

cause you are one of the few, that have hardware that supported and software thats supported, SIMPLE as that, it's not about knowing how to use it, hell it's windows it's not hard to use

so you have problems with it now ???

I don't have any issues because I got the hardware needed which is supported and certified by windows vista.. If people are clever enough they wouldn't end up buying something which is not compatible with vista..

If they do so..they can wait till they get a suitable drive for their hardware..they cant blame Vista just like that..