Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Windows Operating Systems Software

HardOCP Spends 30 Days With Vista 662 writes " has published "30 days with Vista" — with the same author from "30 days with Linux" doing the evaluation. And he doesn't like it. From the article: 'Based on my personal experiences with Vista over a 30 day period, I found it to be a dangerously unstable operating system, which has caused me to lose data [...] Any consideration of the fine details comes in second to that one inescapable conclusion. This is an unstable operating system.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HardOCP Spends 30 Days With Vista

Comments Filter:
  • by mjmalone ( 677326 ) * on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:51PM (#18608565) Homepage
    Is there anything that Vista does right? It's not just that it's more resource intensive, and less stable than XP - it's also less usable. Check out this report [], vista is less intuitive, has higher menu latency, and has more "friction" than XP/OS X. This is not just about the OS being "pretty." For a product that is used every day by millions of people this will substantially impact productivity.
    • by Ucklak ( 755284 ) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:55PM (#18608633)
      One of my biggest gripes is that the popups are too wordy and popups that require an answer aren't intuitively selectable.
      Going to green text on a white background for a "Yes, I want to" or "No, I don't" was a bad UI choice.
    • by Torvaun ( 1040898 ) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:20PM (#18609125)
      Searches. Windows Vista beats the pants off my Windows XP with Google Desktop. IPv6 is fully integrated. They killed off a bunch of backwards compatibility, which has hosed some older programs. The interface is nice, but not necessary. Stack protection.

      Don't forget that we're comparing the recently released Vista to XP, which has been out for years. Of course XP is going to be winning popularity contests right now. Same thing would have happened when XP was released if it wasn't following up ME. I've worked with people who want to keep their Windows 98 machines, for crying out loud. But very few people move backward from a mature OS. There may still be people who like Windows 98, but there aren't people who use Windows XP, and say "Gee, I wish I was using 98 instead." So shall it be with Vista when it matures.
      • Searches (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Mateo_LeFou ( 859634 ) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:37PM (#18609479) Homepage
        I'm quoting this article a lot today...

        "WinFS, advertised as a way to make searching work by making the file system be a relational database, ignores the fact that the real way to make searching work is by making searching work. Don't make me type metadata for all my files that I can search using a query language. Just do me a favor and search the damned hard drive, quickly, for the string I typed, using full-text indexes and other technologies that were boring in 1973." []
      • by UncleTogie ( 1004853 ) * on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:43PM (#18609599) Homepage Journal

        Searches. Windows Vista beats the pants off my Windows XP with Google Desktop.

        I've never found a use for the indexing and search functions that people are happily touting with Vista, Google Desktop, and others... Instead, I use a logical directory naming convention that makes looking for what I need a simple matter of choosing the directory that has what I need.
      • by houghi ( 78078 )
        Why do you think it is crazy that people want to use Win98? There is one rule: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

        For many the only thing that was broke was the licence (and thus the support)

        If I see what I do now with my machine compared to several years ago, the difference is not that much. Perhaps gamers need 3D and what not. I just surf, write mail, do some stuff in a spreadsheet and occasionaly put together a slideshow for a presentation.

        Oh and all the rest is now web-based stuf, so I actualy should be ab
    • by mungtor ( 306258 ) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:40PM (#18609543)
      Is something merely intuitive if things are where you expect them to be? If so, then intuitive is simply a synonym for "familiar" and progress stops in the name of keeping things "intuitive". There has to be some measure of usability that takes out the abstract human factor of previous experience. Has a test ever been done where you take 2 computer illiterate people and give them a task to determine which can figure it out faster?

      I think a better measure of the effectiveness of the UI would be that given 2-3 weeks to familiarize yourself with the interface, can you perform the same tasks you used to in less time. ie, is it efficient once you overcome the learning curve?

      (On a tangent, I think the Gnome dev team has been wrestling with this problem. Trying to follow a design process which they believe is more efficient once you commit to using in the way they intended instead of allowing rampant customization. Obviously, that attitude doesn't work for everybody.)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Xymor ( 943922 )
      You're all expecting too much from Vista, mostly because you're not familiar with Microsoft's naming standards.
      Here's a little Microsoft -> Programmer list of terms I compiled:

      alpha = non-existant
      beta = alpha
      Full Retail edition = beta
      SP1 = Full Retail edition

  • Nice editor's note at the very end that says "Well, it's just this one guy's opinion, obviously Vista isn't unfit for any user like he thinks after EXTENDED REAL-LIFE TESTING. I'm not trying to appease our Masters in Redmond, really."
  • by pembo13 ( 770295 ) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:54PM (#18608619) Homepage
    only people who have actually used Vista comment. These articles about operating systems are already boring enough without the same boring comments. At the very least I would like a few +5 funny comments.
  • It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xzvf ( 924443 ) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:57PM (#18608667)
    Even if Vista is the gold standard of operating systems, I use Linux and FOSS because once it's on my computer I own it. The data is mine, what I do with it (on my personal system) is mine. I don't have to ask permission from Apple or Microsoft to boot. It's my computer, my software, my content.
  • Instability? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KermodeBear ( 738243 ) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @01:59PM (#18608699) Homepage
    I have had Vista running on a machine for about a month and I haven't run into a single issue yet. I hear horror stories (mostly on Slashdot), and I can't claim that they're false, but it does make me wonder what other people are doing that I am not (or what I am doing that OTHERS are not). Maybe the user is unstable, or perhaps there are driver issues.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ivan256 ( 17499 )
      The only issue I've run into is the compatibility. There are simply too few applications and devices supported. I haven't had stability issues, but I'd still recommend people wait a year before taking the Vista plunge unless they are buying an OEM machine and new peripherals, and you don't run anything but mainstream apps.
    • by cliffski ( 65094 )
      Same here, my PC has some sleep/hibernate problems, but I havent really investigated them because startup / shutdown is so fast. The disk thrashed till i turned off indexing, but apart from that vista feels responsive, very user-friendly, and hasn't crashed or hung once.
      And even using the 'dodgy' nvidia 8800 drivers hasnt caused me any issues. Games run fast and fluid, and I haven't encountered any app with major compatibility problems.
    • by fm6 ( 162816 )
      The biggest instability issue is that spontaneous rebooting. Since this guy had it on two different computers running the same applications, it's probably an application issue.

      And if it is, Vista is absolutely, unacceptably unstable. It should simply not be possible for an application to cause a spontaneous reboot without prompting the user. And in that context, your more positive experience is pretty meaningless: you don't have any applications that cause this problem now. But Murphy's Law says that you wi
  • Didn't have Vista crash (at all) during the last 30, or slightly more, days in Vista. So, no data loss. Burned DVDs just fine. Most hardware worked fine too, just had to use drivers other than the latest version for my Zen. Now, it's possible that some drivers didn't work with Vista so I can't comment on that, but otherwise it looks like this guy's just upset that he didn't get his check (or is it a laptop now?).
  • My experience (Score:3, Interesting)

    by blackmonday ( 607916 ) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:02PM (#18608761) Homepage
    I evaluated Vista on a mild machine - Dual Core Pentium D, Intel 950 graphics, 1 GB memory. Surprisingly, 50% of my system memory was being used by Windows and Aero. That was pretty much all I needed to know that I was sticking with XP for a little while longer.
  • by 8127972 ( 73495 ) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:02PM (#18608767)
    .... But to say that it is "dangerously unstable" seems a bit much. Perhaps this guy had hardware issues that were responsible for the OS being unstable?
  • Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by VividU ( 175339 ) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:06PM (#18608849)
    Go back and you'll see the exact same comments when Windows 2000 came out, when Windows XP was released, when the first Xbox was released and when the Xbox 360 was released.
    • If there weren't comments like this for Vista, that would imply it is a better operating system. If there are as many comments like this for Vista as there were for XP, then that would imply that Vista is as good. If there are many, many, many more comments like this for Vista than there were for XP or 2000, then that implies that Vista is a far, far, far worse operating system.
    • by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:30PM (#18609337) Homepage
      I don't know how we can get out of the vicious circle of declining expectations.

      I know nobody believes it, but there was a time when beta versions were called betas, and Version 1.0 meant a product that was finally finished, SQA-ed, and working.

      Users have a right to a version 1.0 that works. Shrugging your shoulders and saying "hey, what do you expect, it's version 1.0" wouldn't be tolerable in any other product.

  • My experience has been that the 64bit version was dead stable (not a single hiccup) and once I got a non-nvidia sound driver so was the 32bit version. Before I downloaded a "generic" C-Media sound driver the nvidia one crashed at least every 20 minutes and had me very close to re-imaging my disk back to the 64bit version. My only gripe is that I cannot mount my EXT3 volumes from within Vista (was doing this in XP with the extIFS driver).

    Windows update still tells me that they have an updated sound driver
  • My Vistaring (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Spad ( 470073 ) <> on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:16PM (#18609045) Homepage
    I had Vista installed on my PC at work for about a month, but in the end I had to go back to XP. It wasn't a performance issue - the PC wouldn't do Aero but it ran pretty well even with the default Vista interface - it wasn't even UAC (which was switched off on day one). The biggest problem I had by far was that nothing would run: Exchange 2003 tools won't install. The Landesk Management console won't install. The ELM management console won't install. NT User/Computer manager won't run (Yes, I know). Even our call logging software (Sunrise) had serious install issues that could only be resolved by installing it as a Domain Admin. Put bluntly, it got to the point where I couldn't do my job properly because none of the tools I use on a daily basis would install or run under Vista.

    Now, some of this is down to the software manufacturers for not being on the ball, some of it is due to things like MS moving all the IIS stuff so that older apps can no longer find it. Not to mention the fact that the Exchange 2003 tools are a Microsoft Product and they're not intending to provide an installation method under Vista *at all*. Even the Exchange 2007 tools have been looking a bit flaky where Vista is concerned.
  • by Wylfing ( 144940 ) <brian@w y l f i n g . net> on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:22PM (#18609155) Homepage Journal

    I haven't used Vista at all yet, but for the sake of argument I will assume that this review is a good indication of Vista's quality: a bit less good than XP. Now I have used XP, extensively, and I have used Linux extensively, and in my judgment the quality of a distribution like Fedora or Ubuntu is about on par with the quality of XP. You get roughly the same number of annoyances, the same amount of flaky behavior, and the same number of breakages, some of which you can fix and some of which you can't.

    With Vista, apparently I need to knock it down 10% or so from XP in terms of its quality. Plus (and this is a big one) it actively works against the user with intentional breakages. DVD burning tools that produce discs only readable on Vista? Come again? IE7 objects to downloads from Sourceforge? Nice. So I'll take off another 10% for these shenanigans. That means Vista is about 80% as good as Ubuntu.

    Where did the billions of dollars and years of development go? Why can't Redmond put out an OS that is at least as good as the freebie alternative? They should be selling an OS that is dramatically better than anything else available. Why aren't they?

  • by goodenoughnickname ( 874664 ) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:23PM (#18609181)
    Could he not find an activation crack or something?
  • by LibertineR ( 591918 ) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:26PM (#18609265)
    At this very moment, my primary workstation is in the middle of a Spinrite recovery cycle, because Vista keeps corrupting my SATA Raid, and cause it to disapear.

    This computer dual boots XP, where this never happens. The RAID driver is exactly the same on both OS's so I blame Vista.

  • by yuna49 ( 905461 ) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @02:28PM (#18609293)
    For me, the most striking feature of his review concerned burning DVDs. He claimed that Vista uses a new file format for DVDs that isn't backward compatible with earlier Windows versions, not to mention being incompatible with Linux, Mac, etc. I'm puzzled about why I haven't heard more about this problem if it's real. For those of you running Vista, have you had problems writing data DVDs that work with non-Vista systems? Did you have to choose specifically to use the traditional format when burning the DVD? Is it really non-obvious how to make the traditional format the default as he suggests?

    This seems like a show-stopper to me for anyone wanting to exchange data with non-Vista users, especially if the default is to use the Vista-only format. The fact that I haven't heard this complaint before makes me suspicious that it's something unique to his setup, but not being a Windows user I have no basis to judge.

    • by crabpeople ( 720852 ) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @05:47PM (#18612481) Journal

      "This seems like a show-stopper to me for anyone wanting to exchange data with non-Vista users, especially if the default is to use the Vista-only format."
      I have experienced this. I believe what he is talking about is an "open session" dvd/cd. YES it is the default choice when you burn a CD only they call it "Live File System". Actually you have to select a little "advanced" options dropdown or it will burn without telling you about that. If you click advanced, it shows a screen that says it will be incompatable with anything before windows xp.

      I always click advanced options on things but your right, most people wouldn't.

  • by jgoemat ( 565882 ) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @03:04PM (#18609903)
    Ever since I installed them, I've been getting Blue Screens Of Death multiple times per day on both my work computer and my laptop computer. It could be something with the SQL Server 2005 update or the "critical" vulnerability fix, I don't know. It was always stop 0x00000050, with the third number 0x89E773DE. I would think my memory was going bad or that it was a driver issue, but the only change on my computers was installing those updates, and it has happened on both consistently. It doesn't matter what I'm doing on the computers, it usually happens when I'm away from them. A friend of mine had just started getting BSODs too and hadn't made the connection, but he just performed the updates before it started happening also...
  • by infiniphonic ( 657188 ) on Wednesday April 04, 2007 @03:14PM (#18610059) Homepage
    has been no trouble at all. I have been running it on an older Toshiba A10-S169 laptop. It installed all drivers without the slightest problem. Out of a gig, it runs with about 350 to 400 megs of ram used by the OS. Some old software has not worked at all and some has worked flawlessly. I run it in basic due to integrated 3 year old crappy graphics. It has locked up a few times. It has not totally crashed once. It seems to come back from errors much quicker than XP ever has. It works very well for a new OS. I can not say the same for XP in it's first six months. I might start recomending it to friends and customers soon. I have yet to encounter the DRM boogyman. I am using it to type this post. If you haven't tried it yet, don't discount it because you really don't know what you are talking about. Some problems are bound to occur with some hardware this early in it's life. Thats how it is with something new. Not everything in the world will work perfectly, but many problems that people are having now will be worked out in the next year. It's probably not for everyone and thats OK. My Vista rant.

The wages of sin are high but you get your money's worth.