Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Concedes Vista Launch Problems
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Sep 10, 2008 08:48 PM
from the who's-to-blame dept.
from the who's-to-blame dept.
notdagreatbrain writes "Maximum PC just posted a lengthy feature looking back at the myriad problems that went into Microsoft's 6 billion dollar failure of the Vista launch. Aside from running benchmarks comparing Vista at launch how its performing now, they also found a Microsoft exec who was willing to speak frankly about Vista. The Microsoft source blamed bad drivers from GPU companies and printer companies for the majority of Vista's early stability problems and described User Account Control as poorly implemented but defended it as necessary for the continued health of the Windows platform. He assailed OEM system builders for including bad, buggy, or just plain useless apps on their machines in exchange for a few bucks on the back end. Finally he conceded that Apple appeals to more and more consumers because the hardware is slick, the price is OK, and Apple doesn't annoy its customers (or allow third parties to)."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
So...... (Score:5, Insightful)
He blamed everyone but Microsoft?
Why does that not surprise me?
Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, he admitted that UAC was poorly implemented.
Microsoft has no control over the shit quality of drivers released by hardware manufacturers.
They have no control over the shit quality of apps loaded by OEMs.
I can personally attest that everything he said is true. I own an Acer laptop, which ran like bloody hell with the OEM shartware installed. I also own an HP laptop, which ran like bloody hell with the OEM shartware installed. Upon formatting both drives, partitioning them more sanely and reinstalling Vista (Home Premium) on both, using the included Anytime Upgrade (or Reinstall) DVD, Vista ran wonderfully.
I still installed Kubuntu on both. Windows is nice to have around if you ever need it (BIOS updates on the HP, or calling for tech support on either machine, for example) but really not right for daily use for me.
The Acer has Intel graphics. All is good and will with Vista there.
I've had the HP (ok, it was originally a Compaq, which they warranty-replaced with a better HP model when it completely failed -- though both have the same video hardware) for a year and a half, now. For the first 9 months, the nVidia drivers were crashing the damn thing fairly regularly. It wasn't until 9 months ago that they released a driver that didn't crash this laptop.
I also run a desktop, which I use for music production, running Windows-only software (it runs in winE, but not as a fully functional application). I run Vista Ultimate (free from MS for participating in a "spyware" program, which I installed on a laptop which was used only for YouTube and other cutesy flash crap) on this machine. I've had both ATI and nVidia cards in this machine. The ATI still doesn't have a workable driver. The nVidia, same as with the HP laptop, no good driver until 9mo ago.
I purchased an HP printer for that desktop system. It literally took me a week to get the damned thing to install.
Other than that, I actually like Vista Ultimate. Now that I have stable video drivers and the printer actually works, neither of which were Microsoft's fault, it's wonderful. Being a retail install, it never had any OEM shartware installed on it.
Runs smooth and quick.
And yes, UAC is poorly implemented. That's Microsoft's fault, all the freaking way.
$0.02 from a full-time Linux user and fanboi. Vista has its place, even in my home. My HTPC runs Linux, though; the DRM in Vista still scares me.
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure I would go so far as to say they have zero control over that situation. Apple would not be a fair comparison since they control both the hardware and the software. So, I have to compare the Windows approach to the Linux approach since I am most familiar with it.
With the one exception of the nVidia proprietary driver (which I use over the open-source driver for performance reasons, not stability reasons), every last driver on my machine came with the kernel. I don't need to trust the quality of anything produced by any hardware manufacturer. I can use drivers that I know will work and that I know will be extremely stable. I'm sure someone out there is using some strange hardware combination and this is his cue to pipe up that this was not his experience, but I believe the vast majority of desktop Linux users can say the same thing. The Windows approach is demonstrably inferior in this case, and I just don't believe that Microsoft is the pitiful helpless victim that's powerless to change this.
That certainly is true, but then, why should so many user applications have the ability to affect the rest of the operating system? Either they don't and whether they are shit quality is moot, or they do and this is rightfully considered a shortcoming in the overall design of Windows. I don't see any third options here.
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)
That certainly is true, but then, why should so many user applications have the ability to affect the rest of the operating system? Either they don't and whether they are shit quality is moot, or they do and this is rightfully considered a shortcoming in the overall design of Windows. I don't see any third options here.
I call trolling. If I install an app on any OS which integrates itself into the browser, runs as a background task consuming enormous amounts of RAM and network bandwidth and otherwise misbehaves, it's going to make the experience shitty. And no, this isn't a "shortcoming in the overall design." Any app needs to be allowed to do everything I just described (for RAM and CPU, see Photoshop, for network usage, see BitTorrent, etc.). Blaming MS for vendors loading shitty software onto a machine and claiming its a design flaw is bullshit.
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)
That certainly is true, but then, why should so many user applications have the ability to affect the rest of the operating system? Either they don't and whether they are shit quality is moot, or they do and this is rightfully considered a shortcoming in the overall design of Windows. I don't see any third options here.
I call trolling. If I install an app on any OS which integrates itself into the browser, runs as a background task consuming enormous amounts of RAM and network bandwidth and otherwise misbehaves, it's going to make the experience shitty. And no, this isn't a "shortcoming in the overall design." Any app needs to be allowed to do everything I just described (for RAM and CPU, see Photoshop, for network usage, see BitTorrent, etc.). Blaming MS for vendors loading shitty software onto a machine and claiming its a design flaw is bullshit.
No, you misinterpreted what I was saying and that's at least partly my fault. I was referring to the impact on the overall stability of the system. The overall performance of the system is a completely different metric. First I discussed how this applies to third-party drivers, then I said a bit about how this applies to OEM-supplied crapware. I said further that if the crapware doesn't affect the rest of the system, then whether they are shit quality is moot. I was referring to the stability of the rest of the system (i.e. BSODs), not every possible effect that poor-quality software could conceivably have (that'd be quite a lot to cover in only a couple of small paragraphs, don't you think?). You found a possible effect that it could conceivably have, which is that being a resource hog might bog everything down.
So yeah, a process consuming a large amount of resources (RAM, bandwidth, CPU) will definitely bog down the system. It will reduce performance and slow things down. I really thought that this was so utterly obvious that it went without saying, so my first thought was not that someone would assume, contrary to the focus of every other part of my post, that I was referring to anything other than system stability with those three sentences. This really is the only ambiguous part of my entire post, and your entire response hinges on it:
If I had said "have the ability to affect the stability of the rest of the operating system" you could not have misunderstood me. That much was my fault, I should have more clearly said what I meant. But, you read into that one sentence a meaning that was inconsistent with what I was saying prior to it and this did not make you hesitate for a moment to wonder if I really meant what you thought I meant. The mods followed your example in their own way, and so did several who also responded (apparently I'm a shill now -- more namecalling to follow, I'm sure). Is it really that hard not to knee-jerk? I increasingly feel like I have to idiot-proof my posts against every possible misinterpretation, which is effort better spent expressing ideas, because certainly whenever there are multiple potential interpretations the one that makes the weakest argument for the other guy is the most appealing to you, the one that you just know he had to have meant, right? Isn't that how it works for most of you? I wonder how much time that could be spent in productive debate is wasted guarding against this low-hanging fruit "haha, gotcha!" type of shit.
The only negativity I feel about this at all is that I honestly expected better from this group. If I were doing a presentation about Windows design vs. Linux design for a national TV news show, I'd have had no such expectations and would feel that the misinterpretation is 100% my fault.
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Not that helpful (Score:5, Insightful)
AFAIK for Desktop users there's very little difference between rebooting and restarting X.
They lose all their unsaved work - since most of it is still in apps in X. And the last I checked if you restart X, the apps die. I'd love to be proven wrong on this.
Sure it's not a big problem for people who just use X as an interface to ssh and screen, and for some browsing. But I heard there's this push for "Desktop".
In the old days Windows 95 ran on MSDOS, if it hung, even if you could get it to exit to dos and then you type win to start it back up, it's still not very helpful to most people.
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Funny)
And yet, despite this power, we wonder why Linux on the desktop has never really taken off ...
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)
I could write some REALLY shitty software for linux that eats up all your resources unnecessarily and bogs down the system. How is that Canonical's or Redhat's fault?
Nothing personal, but this thread has gotten ridiculous, based on the premise that Microsoft has no power over third party drivers or applications. The simple fact is that the competition (Redhat, Apple, Canonical, take your pick) does have control, and Microsoft should have it, they suffer rightly for not having it, and they don't suffer enough!
If Redhat allowed their brand to be associated with your software, then they would deserve what they get. Instead, Redhat tightly controls what can be associated with "Redhat Linux" and they benefit from it.
The problem is not a technical one. Windows is largely technically excellent software, and it's correct that bad applications will always be able to stuff up good systems. MS exploits user ignorance, confusing the line between "Windows" "MS application" "other application" and "computer." Redhat on the other hand, is very clearly clear about what is and is not their responsibility. Also, I assume Microsoft could exert tighter control over what gets bundled with Windows if they were not a monopoly. Whether the reasons are legal or practical, it just so happens that Windows sucks partly because it is a monopoly---those reasons just don't apply to the competition.
Another aspect of the problem is partly technical, partly greed: Microsoft cannot and will not proper basic installation disc with each machine. As a result, customers cannot easily bypass the OEM applications. Again, the competition manages to work through the problem.
Now for the real rant. Slashbots are too focused on technical problems. The problem with Windows is mostly not technical but social. Microsoft is ultimately responsible for the quality of the apps installed by OEMs, and excusing them on technical grounds clarifies nothing. Learn from RMS! He was a technical kind of guy who identified that the technical problems had underlying social causes, and required a social (legal) fix. And it worked.
Whether your mission in life is to tear down Microsoft, to be a good programmer or helpdesk operator, to cure cancer, or to write insightful comments, you will not get far if you focus on technical fixes to social problems.
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, the reason your linux drivers work so well is that linux hasn't had the ginormous revamp that the win32 kernel just underwent.
The Linux driver APIs are in a constant state of flux, in fact people that insist on shipping drivers without source are always whining for a fixed binary API. Linux drivers are generally more reliable because they're written and maintained by people who can program rather than thrown together my a h/w engineer as an afterthought.
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)
That certainly is true, but then, why should so many user applications have the ability to affect the rest of the operating system? Either they don't and whether they are shit quality is moot, or they do and this is rightfully considered a shortcoming in the overall design of Windows. I don't see any third options here.
Any operating system can run resource-intensive or dysfunctional applications!
Most of this third party software is installed because the OEM gets a small kickback. If the user purchases an activation/subscription/upgrade, the OEM gets a larger kickback. The only thing to blame is falling margins, the dominance of Windows on the desktop, and lack of consumer interest.
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm gonna agree, with the additional statement that Vista is wonderful AFTER I upgrade my RAM from 2GB to 4GB. Vista Ultimate (x64) is a pretty decent upgrade from XP, and I wouldn't consider going back.
(disclaimer: I also have a macbook and a linux server. All have their drawbacks, all have their strengths. I'm just comparing Vista to XP here.)
Parent
MS did contribute to shit drivers (Score:5, Insightful)
No, instead MS adopted their normal "fuck you all" attitude and forced a new, ill conceived driver model onto the IHVs.
Sure, XP driver support would probably not been a good long term solution, but it would have been a good idea for a year or two: enough time to make the transition slicker.
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)
They have no control over the shit quality of apps loaded by OEMs.
I disagree. The hardware vendors are allowed to sell modified "OEM" Windows disks because MS chooses to let them. While technically, they might not be able to stop the loading of other software, they certainly could require that a pristine off the shelf copy of windows be included with the system, and all other software come on a different disk instead of encouraging vendors to ship heavily modified versions of their software so that the end consumer has no way of doing a clean install.
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Interesting)
The hell Microsoft doesn't have control over this. This is Microsoft's fault and it is rewriting history and denying the obvious to say otherwise.
Let's start with the fact that Microsoft execs overrode *internal* objections to shipping Vista, and they consciously certified marginal Intel systems as "vista-ready" when they knew they weren't. There's no reason they couldn't have made more of a push to have drivers ready, and they could have publicly identified the hardware that was incompatible. They knew exactly what they were doing, and they made a deliberate decision to push the new OS onto platforms for which it wasn't appropriate, and before the appropriate drivers existed.
What about the systems loaded with crapola? Microsoft has been bullying systems manufacturers for years. Microsoft could have required that in order to get the cheap wholesale price, the systems makers had to distribute their malware some other way (e.g., a rebate coupon if you run a CD and install all the crap). This issue simply wasn't on Microsoft's radar screen. It wasn't on their radar screen because the home user is not their target market. They care about 2000+ seat enterprise installations, and those folks buy machines that are built to order and precertified, and don't have the garbage software and buggy drivers.
Microsoft missed several things this time around, including the netbook boom (oops, guess we can't kill XP), the google/apple boom (turns out that home users now value reliability, simplicity, design, and enterprise capabilities, such as synchronized calendars, outside of the enterprise), and the internet's capability to severely punish arrogance and incompetence. They didn't realize that a lousy home experience was going to spill back into the enterprise.
This is a company that has $18 billion in annual profit on $60 billion in annual sales. They have the resources to get stuff done properly. What they do not have these days is competent management. They are on the way down. They are firmly ensconced in the corporate world, it will take a long time, but the direction is finally clear. I wish they were on the way up and making our computing lives better, but they aren't.
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Informative)
I am not usually one for hacking into MS, I have worked with a number of businesses that have been quite successful using their software. On this occasion though, I have to call bullshit. The fact of the matter remains that a number of these drivers did pass WHQL (Windows Hardware Quality Labs) testing. The fact that MS *SIGNED* the steaming brown stuff de-values the program considerably.
Going back to NT4 and previous versions, there was MAJOR issues with quality of drivers, I know certain Xircom cards which would only work with very specific driver configurations as we found out places where the driver was hard coded to use specific ports and IRQs. This all changed with Windows 2000 and signed drivers.
Microsoft should have been harder in their WHQL driver certification for Vista. I know Microsoft only has a finite amount of resources, but they should have known that people were having trouble getting drivers signed and my outsider (un-informed) view is that they should have made more of an effort to work with the OEMs for drivers to work on day 1.
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft should have been harder in their WHQL driver certification for Vista.
Agreed. They should test every piece of hardware in a system with every other piece of hardware to make sure no two drivers interfere with each other. They should spend months probing every part of the driver to make sure there are no security vulnerabilities. They should have a system with every possible configuration, to ensure that the drivers are stable no matter what. Windows should cost tens of thousands of dollars to pay for it all, too. Right.
You're a Microsoft shill.
I used to work in compatibility validation at Intel. What you describe above is exactly what they did with all their hardware and software. Very elaborate programs were set up to test Intel hardware with various other hardware and software in every conceivable combination. People were even paid to sit around and play video games and look for problems. How much do Intel chips cost? Certainly not tens of thousands of dollars.
If MS can't afford to put some serious validation effort into their software, and their partners' software (yes, the hardware vendors are in effect their partners, because their drivers' quality directly affect customers' perception of Windows quality), then they're doing something seriously wrong.
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Funny)
He assailed OEM system builders for including bad, buggy, or just plain useless apps on their machines in exchange for a few bucks on the back end.
Hang on, I thought Microsoft *wanted* OEMs to preinstall Windows?
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has no control over the shit quality of drivers released by hardware manufacturers.
Then again, TFA admits that Apple does a better job preventing third parties from giving the user a poor experience.
I think that there is some truth to this. In the case of the kernel, Apple's IOKit uses embedded C++. For ubiquitous drivers, this is an absolute godsend, most of the work of a driver is already done for you. Writing a driver largely consists of just writing the details that are specific to your device. It's Apple's job to build the framework for devices of your class, not yours.
Secondly, Apple's definition of a real time operating system is subtle, but significant: it's difficult to do things in kernel mode that will degrade user mode (application) experience. It's a pain in the ass sometimes: doing work on a true primary hardware interrupt is hard to achieve, but there are few devices that really need this. The upshot is that a "badly" written driver is unlikely to stop iTunes from playing back media.
Thirdly, certain classes of driver can be entirely user mode. This is a good thing !
Apple's approach is not perfect, if you need real time performance in the kernel then it's truly hard work, and there's little documentation to support you. Thankfully, such drivers are not common. (I worked on drivers for broadcast video editing and effects, IOKit doesn't provide a base class to derive such drivers from !)
My point is not (just) fanboiism. I believe that there is a lot that can be done in architecting an API to encourage well behaved drivers, and other code. Microsoft could do something about it. It would just take dumping an entire driver model and replacing it something better though.
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has no control over the shit quality of drivers released by hardware manufacturers.
Of course this had nothing to do with code maturity and putting yet another burden on hardware manufacturers by changing to a new driver model yet again. (How many times was that in the last 2 decades!? DOS->Win95->Win98->WinXP->Vista).
I'd argue this man is incompetent because he doesn't understand that the first version of anything isn't going to be rock solid and stable. If you can't take that into account you have no business writing a new OS. Didn't Microsoft have driver certification programs? In fact don't drivers have to be signed? What the fuck happened to that?
I purchased an HP printer for that desktop system. It literally took me a week to get the damned thing to install.
Hang on isn't this the same company that has solid and stable XP drivers? Doesn't that say something? Perhaps Vista drivers are harder to write. Perhaps they're just not mature yet. However automatically blaming HP is unfair. It MIGHT be fair it if were just one company or a small group, but MOST companies had trouble. THAT to me suggests the problem IS in fact Vista.
How about Vista's own networking and file system drivers? Are they someone else's fault too? Because early on you'd be lucky to get a large file transfer not to just hang and estimate the age of the universe as when the file copy will finish.
Other than that, I actually like Vista Ultimate
Good for you. Hope you enjoy the bloat, the pretty effects and having your rights restricted left right and center? Oh and the popups. Can't forget the popups.
Vista has exactly 1 thing that I want in XP, and only if you go 64 bit. That is it allows addressing memory larger than 4GB. I am going to hold out on XP for as long as I can, then I'll probably move to Linux because I'll have lost the one thing I truly can't replace on XP - gaming. Gaming on Vista is shite compared to XP and will be for the forseeable future (with the exception of a handful of really hardware intensive resource hogging DirectX 10 games so encumbered with DRM I won't touch them anyway).
Parent
Re:They DO have some control... (Score:5, Informative)
Read the whole post, please.
I clearly state that I used the included Anytime Upgrade DVD to perform a full, clean install. No OEM disc, I can use that same disc to reinstall Vista Ultimate on my desktop, by simply entering the correct license key.
Yes, I've tried it. Yes, it worked.
Another case of HUAS.
Parent
Re:So...... (Score:5, Funny)
I hear the Franco-Swiss border is nice this time of year... Maybe that would be a good place?
Parent
WTF?? (Score:5, Funny)
Continued? What? Continued?? Health? What? Health??
I'm not sure those words mean what you think you mean.
Re:WTF?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Continued? What? Continued?? Health? What? Health?? I'm not sure those words mean what you think you mean.
Did he explicitly state good health?
Parent
The RAM error (Score:5, Informative)
TFA misses a major misstep. Microsoft allowed Vista to be shipped on hardware that just wasn't up to the task. Vista is unusable with less than a gig of memory, but chain stores were flooded with laptops equipped with "only" 512MB. This gave new users a terrible experience. "First boot" of a new laptop took half an hour. No application, not even Solitaire, would run without freezing.
Two of my family members had Vista laptops ... for a few hours, anyway, until I installed Ubuntu. Performance problems all went away after that.
Re:The RAM error (Score:5, Interesting)
So much for my theory that paying more will lead to a longer lifespan for my laptop. Vista smells like WinME - maybe it's getting to be like Star Trek movies, you should avoid every other (or in this case every third) release...
Parent
Re:The RAM error (Score:5, Interesting)
It's more than just RAM problems. I'm typing this from a 4G XPS 1530. It's a great machine. Runs Ubunutu 8.04 and XP wonderfully, but the pre-installed Vista is a piece of crap. At this moment I'm connecting via the Gigabit wired connection because wireless is unstable. Wired is SO 2005!!!!!
Seriously though, the wireless connection drops every couple minutes. Googling informs that it could be a bunch of things and I've tried each one. These include switching to high performance mode (so the wireless card doesn't get turned off to conserve battery) to upgrading the access point so it understands some new power save feature, to disabling IPv6 settings. None work.
Even with 4G I get those freezes. Googling indicates it could be SuperFetch. It might be the virus scan. It might be my graphics card crashing and silently restarting. Doesn't matter what the culprit is, it's just freaking annoying to be typing something and have the machine pause for 10 to 20 seconds at a time.
I agree with you that Microsoft shouldn't have OKed 512M configurations, but I think that was probably the least of their problems. At least with a minimum RAM configuration you could upgrade.
Parent
Generalisation about Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no question Apple is improving its brand.
However, the reason for Apple's popularity is a massive generalisation:
The hardware is slick, but it seems to be getting worse (or being exposed to more scrutiny) as it becomes more and more mainstream. The hardware also has little to do with MS and its products success or failure, in the sense that it is perfectly possible to spend Apple-type dollars on a Windows PC and get a very solid, high performance machine.
The price is ok - I won't restart that debate but it remains the case that Apple is typically somewhat pricier for the equivalent hardware.
But the last part really annoys me - I have been an Apple customer from time to time and they annoy the absolute crap out of me. They deny problems, use proprietary software, aggressively attack anyone who attempts to open up their hardware platforms, and generally act in a self-righteous manner.
What Microsoft needs to realise is not that Apple is gaining on it because it "just works", it is gaining because it works at all, unlike many aspects of Vista.* There are plenty of ways to attack Apple, but unless you have a product that is at least competently made there is no way you can do it.
A case in point is the revised Zune - it looks like in many ways (other than MS's bullshit DRM/proprietary interface stuff) it is the equal of the equivalent ipod. If MS can do the same with its OS, then suddenly it has a product as good as Apple and 80%+ of the PC market already in its corner.
* and yes, I do know what I'm talking about, I have done several Vista uninstalls which have dramatically improved stability and performance of new laptops
Re:Generalisation about Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
If wishes were horses, beggars would eat, too.
Fact of the matter is, it's a pain in the ass to get a high-performance, non-bloatware infested Vista machine that doesn't suffer from driver-related crashes and all the rest of the mess they talk about in this article, much of which is STILL going on. And you're actually holding up the Zune, of all things, as a model of success to be emulated?!
I've bought seven Macs in the last 5 years (I run a small business...graphic design/marketing/photography) and I simply don't have time to deal with Microsoft. I actually just bought two new Mac Pros. It was really easy. I went to the Apple store, said, "I'd like two of those please," they loaded them up in my car, and I was up and running later that day. No bloatware, no weird driver problems, decently usable software already installed...no problems. Could I have gotten something "equivalent" by building it myself for less money? Only if my time is worthless.
Then again, I'm bothering to write a comment on Slashdot, so clearly my time is not worth that much...
Parent
VISTA was lauched in BETA (Score:5, Insightful)
I am back to the DUAL BOOT Linux/XP on my older hardware and performance is decent. Same hardware with VISTA... forget about it.
Re:VISTA was lauched in BETA (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with VISTA is that it was launched it BETA.
This is an exaggeration!
Missing drivers, big footprint hardware requirements, and horrible power management (which drained many a laptop battery) caused the early demise of VISTA.
Hm. Alright. It's not much of an exaggeration.
I gave up on VISTA, but I understand that MS is slowly working out the problems.
This is true. What I really what to comment on here is the state of the FUD surrounding Vista. There were many negative reviews of Vista at time of release, which were deserved, if a little hyperbolic - I know, because I ran Vista and tested it.
When SP1 came out the reviews were similarly negative. I didn't test it for several months. Most broken things had not been fixed, the reviews said, and I did not go back for seconds.
Recently, I did test Vista with SP1. As it happens, I'm still running it. And whilst I'm not ready to recommend Vista yet, I'll say this gladly: most of the problems were fixed. And most of the articles bashing SP1 were just inaccurate FUD.
It really irritates me when things are reported innaccurately in this way. I don't mind if you have a negative opinion of something, even if it's something I really like. But I can't abhor being LIED to, simply because you're a zealot.
Parent
Appe Doesn't Annoy Its Customers? (Score:5, Informative)
Apple doesn't annoy its customers (or allow third parties to)
AT&T. Locked iPhones. Can't do anything not officially blessed with your iPhone unless you unlock it. Can't register your iPhone with anyone other than AT&T. iTunes is loaded with DRM, and QuickTime is pretty annoying... I do love Apple, but seriously, they constantly flirt with annoying their customers far more than most companies.
Re:Appe Doesn't Annoy Its Customers? (Score:5, Informative)
iTunes is loaded with DRM
On Windows at least, it also installs:
1) an auto-start AppleMobileDeviceService service
2) an auto-start iPodService service
3) an auto-start iTunesHelper application
4) Bonjour as an auto-start service
5) MobileMe
Additionally, it defaults to installing the AppleUpdate service, which - when it finds updates - defaults to installing Safari alongside the updates.
Just to listen to music?
Parent
Bad drivers? (Score:5, Insightful)
So why their certified those faulty drivers?
Most drivers carry the log "Made for Vista" with digital signature provided by MS. That is supposed to have some QA, isn't it?
Re:Don't you dare blame the GPU/Printer companies! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes blame printer drivers. Crappiest bloated pieces of shit ever to be coded. Print drivers on modern printers should be under 5MB MAXIMUM. Often print drivers on modern 5in1 w/es are in excess of 200MB! holy god, even taking the bullshit ap and ui they needlessly tacked on how could it have gotten that bloated. Even trying to make the program needlessly huge the compiler would probably compress it to less than anything i could code.
Parent
Not just drivers, it's the added dummy software (Score:5, Insightful)
Every printer, network card, scanner and camera I've installed on Windows in the last ten years has tried to add useless dummyware on top of the driver.
You install the driver, then there's a "print manager" that has extra options, ink monitoring, visual queue monitors, and tons of crap that most people never need to do.
Of course, it also takes up residence in the system tray, in case you need dummyware at a click.
It's like our society in general. By attempting to pander to the stupid, it puts the smart in difficult positions and makes life worse for everyone.
Parent
Re:Don't you dare blame the GPU/Printer companies! (Score:5, Informative)
hardly gave them any time
Manufacturers had more than full year before the release date.
But some manufacturers (Creative [gizmodo.com] comes to mind) didn't ship proper Vista drivers for an additional eight months after Vista Business Final was released.
Parent
Re:They're playing the vista commerical now.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. OS, hardware, software... they all have a significant impact in user experience.
They should do this study with computers coming straight off the shelves of Circuit City, Best Buy, and from online stores like Dell. Install "Mojave". Give these computers to the average user for a year.
Now, ask those people about their experiences. I doubt their answers would be anywhere close. The average response would probably be something like this: "I like how it looks better than XP, but I don't think it's any better really... I still can't find what I need, it's slow, and I think I need more memory or something. Fix that stuff, and some of the annoying boxes that pop up, and I'd probably like it better."
Parent
Re:Top of the line? (Score:5, Informative)
I speak from experience, as someone who owns a DV9000. I ordered it with 1GB of ram to max out the CPU specs, knowing I would upgrade the ram later. Vista ran very very slowly. I upped it to 1.5GB and it runs just fine. Ram makes all the difference with Vista, even though it shouldn't. Say all you want about all the ram usage being pre-caching - if it were just pre-caching, it wouldn't have been slow with twice the ram it "needs", and it wouldn't have sped up dramatically just by adding half a gig more space used only for precaching. If that's their idea of speeding up applicaiton loading with pre-caching, I'd rather go back to the XP way of things.
The "Mojave Experiment" method is simple: get a person who says Vista is slow (because it is, on their machine), sit them in front of a computer with twice the ram theirs has, and get them to do a recorded double-take at how fast said machine is running Vista. Then they go home filled with excitement ready to prove themselves wrong on how slow Vista is and realize their copy of Vista isn't as fast as the Vista they used and wonder what the heck the testers did (remember, these are the kinds of people who read "Word for Dummies" - any person with a clue about technology would be filtered out in a screening process or have his response never aired).
I say all this as someone who uses Windows for daily development without much issue. I don't hate Windows. I do, however, hate dishonesty, whether express or implied, as the lawyers would say.
Parent
Re:They're playing the vista commerical now.. (Score:5, Funny)
At least you can tell they're talking about Vista and not shoes.
Parent
Re:They're playing the vista commerical now.. (Score:5, Funny)
Or Churros, don't forget the churros.
Delicious.
Parent
Re:No issues here (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, that would've been an extremely high-end workstation just a couple of years ago. Of course Vista should run like the wind on that hardware.
Never mind that I have a similar machine and Vista runs like frozen molasses, but can't upgrade to XP because NVidia hasn't released XP-compatible video drivers. I'd switch to Ubuntu in a heartbeat if it weren't for a few critical application I absolutely must have.
Parent
Re:First Godwin! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:First Godwin! (Score:5, Informative)
Specifically, it says the SS uniforms and the Hitler Youth uniforms.
Parent
Re:Mac os x is so much better that hack it to run (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Mac os x is so much better that hack it to run (Score:5, Funny)
He couldn't be German. His sentence at the end does not his verbs have.
Does that mean Yoda was a Nazi?
Parent
Re:I speak for many with older hardware (Score:5, Funny)
It's a very poor ripoff of MAC OS.
It's funny; one of the reasons I switched to the Mac was that I looked at Vista and thought, "well if I'm going to be running OSX, I might as well run the real thing."
Parent
Re:Beta tester looking back (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent