What's Vista's One-Year Grade Point Average?

Windows Vista's one-year anniversary is Wednesday. Microsoft released the software to everybody on Jan. 30, 2007. A day earlier, Microsoft held a launch gala for Vista and Office 2007 in New York. In this post, I score how well Vista has done in 12 areas since its real launch 12 months ago. Microsoft also launched Vista on Nov. 30, 2006. But the release that matters—when businesses or consumers could buy PCs—happened two months later.

I chose attributes that I believe matter most in evaluating Vista's real relevance, particularly in relationship to Windows XP. The scoring is my own, based on my personal experience using Windows Vista for nearly two years and on my assessment of other users' perceptions and experiences, including Microsoft customers and partners.

View: The ful story @ MS-Watch

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

MSI: LEDs, Blu-ray Disc, Eco big in laptops this year

Next Story

Blu-ray Disc--The New VHS?

50 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

C-

Vista has a long way to go. It's immature and needs to grow into development. Give it time and we will love it like 2000/XP

I give it a overall C and I have to agree that it's the most stable version of Windows I've every had right out of the box, and I've run every version since 3.11.

Definitely need decent hardware to enjoy this OS though.

(Glen said @ #27)
I give it a overall C and I have to agree that it's the most stable version of Windows I've every had right out of the box, and I've run every version since 3.11.

Definitely need decent hardware to enjoy this OS though.

Maybe, but Vista runs fine on my Thinkpad T40 with 1GB RAM and ATI Radeon Mobility (no Aero)

I would also agree that it's stable while I've been running every version of SP1 on 3 different machines.

vista x64 is a solid B+. very fast and very stable. i have performance issues with some stuff (mainly file copying, and yes i installed the patch) but most of it is quicker than xp. especially boot and log-on time

all the bad coments people have for vista are mostly due to them trying it out when it was first released (and they somehow think that nothing has changed in the past year) so they comment from their experiences a year ago. and they read all the problems of other people and hop on the bandwagon.

scanners, printers, etc. not being supported on vista is NOT vista's fault. it's the programmers that need to release new drivers.

bad drivers, non-certified programs / hardware, and crappy programming has nothing to do with microsoft's part of things. stop marking down vista for stuff that isn't microsoft's fault

hopefully SP1 will bump it up to an A for me

I'd have to give Vista an A- because there has been 0 need to use spybot, adaware, spywareblaster etc... (even panda scan) all that comes up are tracking cookies, no threats even when venturing into infected websites. They did SOMETHING right right? As for software/hardware compatibility, everything seems to be ok... probably if I upgrade then I'll see something different. But for now I like it a lot better than the rest.

What I think is a bit amusing is the fact that this is not just a Microsoft issue. While a high percentage of Windows Vista have complained, so to have Mac users with Leopard and Linux users with (the latest Ubuntu and Fedora releases). It seems that no one is happy. To be honest, most people think of computers like they do a car, TV or coffee maker. Can you imagine having to buy a new car every two years to four years and it was required, not optional.

As for Vista, I would have to give it a B. There are some software issues (not many, mostly games), decreased performance (which should be expected with new software), but the list of hardware still not supported bring it down an entire letter grade. An issue that comes to mind was the delayed and than buggy version of APC Powerchute (working since July) and than the long delay for Brother to release Vista drivers that support Duplex printing (again in late July). Another is the crappy video and audio drivers that seem to be making it to market.

Finally, I have three scanners (which are old): the HP ScanJet 5200c, Umax 2100u and Visioneer 9020. None of them are supported on Vista. I really do not want to have to purchase a new scanner (I have enough junk as is).

Summary: it gets a B (software issues, hardware device support and at least one important missing feature)

"Technology. Vista isn't exceptionally better than XP, but nuances do matter. Improved manageability, networking, search and security—the plumbing—are worthwhile benefits. B. "

Went over to my brother-in-law's to compare laptops. He had a new HP with Vista Home, I had an older Fujitsu with XP. Oddly mine had no problem seeing his network and internet. His took a couple of hours of poking and prodding to finally realize that that yes, there really was a gateway to the internet.

A guy from work says that he had the same experience with the business version and he is our network admin. "It's great that they improved the network stack, but why screw with the way networking is setup? Change for the sake of change is just frustrating."

Crap reference to a crap article by a crap blogger. Excuse my while I crap on the quality scale. *drops drawers*

I give it a B+

It's not as bad as people think it is. I think it's still undergoing the "Let's hate this new OS from MS for no reason" stage from people. Sure, XP went through it, and look where it is now. I also find it funny how people comment on Vista without even using it.

Before Vista came out, people ragged on XP for being an "insecure" OS. Now, that Vista comes out, everyone is praising XP This is the typical life of MS OS. It's pretty sad that an OS has to go through this. Look at Leopard, I've read so many complaints about it, but Mac users still love it and say it's "better" than Vista.

Stability. Vista is rock solid. A.

That statement deserves a big, fat WTF. Well, he apparently wasn't grading on a curve compared to other OSes.

Vista was rock solid for me. You might want to check the person using the computer :P

Seriously, it is as easy to use as XP, and in terms of stability, it is by far one of the most stable OS's I've ever used bar none. In my honest opinion, not even Linux or Mac OS stand a chance against the stability of Vista. Yep, call me different.

I've had no problems with Windows XP or Vista. I dunno if I could go as far to say "Vista is rock solid." But I haven't had any stability problems on the two systems that I have it installed on.

I've had more stability issues on Mac OS X 10.4 on a Mac Mini 1.2GHz PPC, and Ubuntu Linux on a P4 3.0GHz (yes I have both installed on machines...). But I think that stability has more to do with the hardware you are running combined with the driver support. I've experimented with the Mac Mini and do not plan on purchasing another Mac anytime soon as I wasn't as impressed as some other people are. Right now my Mac Mini is a glorified alarm clock/jukebox for my room. As for Linux, yeah its fun to tinker with. But none of my programs that I need will run on it.

I agree with you lbmouse....

Let's hold off on that thought a sec...

Vista was rock solid for me. You might want to check the person using the computer

Seriously, it is as easy to use as XP, and in terms of stability, it is by far one of the most stable OS's I've ever used bar none. In my honest opinion, not even Linux or Mac OS stand a chance against the stability of Vista. Yep, call me different.


hmmmm..... "Vista WAS rock solid for me". That statement coming from someone who's right hand doesn't know what the left one is up to.

XP was not as stable as you know it to be now. Hence SEVEN long years of code tweaking, bug patching, driver updates, ....etc, etc, etc, etc. Till now.... present day, when a nice new install of SP3 makes you breathe a sigh of relief. However, if you don't believe me, I still have good 'ole fashioned XP fresh out da box!! You can install that baby with no service packs and see how stable it is.... or how long it remains on the net without getting crushed by malware.

Every OS goes thru it's ups and downs.... and believe me when I tell you, when I hear 1 out of 100 tell me it's stable, and I work with the other 99... you'll understand why it's difficult for me to just toss in the towel and go with the one individual.

A fresh installation of Vista is stable.... once the boat is launched, the seas get really rough. And it will continue to be that way until Vista's code gets more time in the shop being fine tuned.

First year grade for Vista: I'd give it a "solid" C-. If I was the coach, I'd have to tell Vista..... "ya got potential son, now take the summer off and get some private lessons"

C+

1) C+ for software uncompatibility
2) A- for memory management (better than XP)
2) C for Aero taking too much resources
3) C for slow copying files from drive to drive
4) B for keeping up with technology

B-

Techically it's very sound, and the value for money ratio is pretty good compared to between 2000 and XP or 95 and 98.
Problems were really marketing and the spec's are a little on the high side.

However I take issue with marking Vista down when it comes to application compatibility. End-users cannot shout about security then when MS implement security changes you then slate Vista for it. Developers have been told from MS for about 7 years that you should ALWAYS test your apps without admin rights. If developers are too f&*^ing lazy to follow guidelines propperly then why the hell should MS be to blame?

Personally I'd give it an A* for application compatibility just because MS have put a crap load of effort into compatibility modes, virtual registry and file redirection etc.

If developers can't be bothered to code properly against your platform, don't blame the platform developer when applications don't work!

(stevehoot said @ #13)
B-

Techically it's very sound, and the value for money ratio is pretty good compared to between 2000 and XP or 95 and 98.
Problems were really marketing and the spec's are a little on the high side.

However I take issue with marking Vista down when it comes to application compatibility. End-users cannot shout about security then when MS implement security changes you then slate Vista for it. Developers have been told from MS for about 7 years that you should ALWAYS test your apps without admin rights. If developers are too f&*^ing lazy to follow guidelines propperly then why the hell should MS be to blame?

Personally I'd give it an A* for application compatibility just because MS have put a crap load of effort into compatibility modes, virtual registry and file redirection etc.

If developers can't be bothered to code properly against your platform, don't blame the platform developer when applications don't work!


well said! I totally agree with you on that.

(bmdixon said @ #13.1)

well said! I totally agree with you on that.

Seconded.

I well remember the Amiga with it's programming rules, one of which was "Thall shalt return all the memory thou hast allocated" and another which warned about banging the hardware directly instead of using the proper library interface calls. And of course, EVERYBODY followed them, right?

Not hardly, many programs would have problems where they'd run sometimes and not others, or run on one model but not another, or leak memory, etc.

Application compatibility issues have heppened long before Windows Vista (do we also forget how many older programs don't work in XP as opposed to Win95/98 because they too didn't follow the rules?) and they'll continue long after Vista has moved into the museum. Heck they'll still be around long after Microsoft.

Oh, boy, here we go again with the non-news on the front page. Haven't we learned what is news and what is an editorial rant yet? Look at the other article about blu-ray, same story of non-news.

This isn't news. It's opinion. Crap opinion at that :P

Microsoft let people get too comfy with XP. Way too long of a gap from the release of XP to the release of Vista. Now everyone knows XP nearly inside out, buisinesses have thier perfect and fantastic slipstreamed disks and nobody knows what the hell the UAC is for. People that complain that you need a faster PC to run Vista really need to look back in time because most new operating systems require you to have improved hardware in order to run them! It's the way technology goes. Your 500Mhz Pentium 3 isn't going to cut it now.

This article is one man's opinion and from his final score which is a D+ I'd say that's a fair summation.

I've been running Vista x64 for the last 6 months at home and have been pleased with it. However I have tested it at my work and would not run this on a business network (not unless I decided I wanted to wait in line at the unemployment office).

Vista has is flaws but then again all OS' do.

(ThaCrip said @ #7)
i aint used vista yet myself... but i just dont see how it can be any better than XP when is all said and done.

Makes a lot of sense. :sleeping:

Does this propaganda machine have an off switch at all? Or do we have to wait until MS release another O/S before we get the daily "Vista is great!" articles stopped?

(SniperX said @ #5)
Does this propaganda machine have an off switch at all? Or do we have to wait until MS release another O/S before we get the daily "Vista is great!" articles stopped?

You call that a pro Vista article?

App compatibility C? HAHAHA Give me a break. Try a E, at BEST.

Stability. Vista is rock solid. A.
ROFL!!! ASIF! Try a C-, maybe. It certainly isn't consistent, and thats what it needs to be to succeed.

Sorry Vista, but I dont think you've done well.

SP1 much?

(Raa said @ #4)
App compatibility C? HAHAHA Give me a break. Try a E, at BEST.
ROFL!!! ASIF! Try a C-, maybe. It certainly isn't consistent, and thats what it needs to be to succeed.

Sorry Vista, but I dont think you've done well.

SP1 much?

what programs are you having problems with?

I just tried out WS_FTP 2007 on Vista SP1 and it works with no compatibility issues. But the app itself is crap. I'll stick with CuteFTP.

(KevinRGood said @ #4.2)

1) Maple 11 (cannot save worksheets)
2) WS_FTP 2007 (does not even run)

so #2 works and #1 well....

The Windows Vista version of Maple 11 is available at no charge to anyone who previously purchased a copy of Maple 11 for Windows. To obtain a copy, enter your purchase code into the form below and click the continue button.

http://www.maplesoft.com/contact/webforms/vista.aspx

any others?