Vista at Risk of Being Bypassed by Businesses 729
narramissic writes "With Windows 7 due in late 2009 or 2010, many businesses may choose to wait it out rather than make the switch to Vista. According to some analysts, Vista uptake at this point really depends on how good Vista SP1 (due in Q1, 2008) is. If it doesn't smooth over all the problems, companies are much more likely to stick with XP. And that holds especially true for those businesses that follow the every-other-release rule." Note for Microsoft: Allow us to natively disable trackpads.
and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe this whole "upgrade the OS" thing isn't such a good business plan after all?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe if they did it well, it might pay off. Windows XP is ancient. For a release, it is very old. They missed on the upgrade the OS thing poorly with Vista. Many are moving on to Apple or Linux instead.
My wife has picked up a Vista laptop to use in class stuff. She needed to play a DVD. After waiting for the boot dialog boxes to quit and closing them all. she started the DVD using an external monitor (dual monitor setup
Re:and then.... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but this is Slashdot, and it's a Microsoft OS. You can't just focus on the stuff it gets right; we want to hear about the cons too...
Re:and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Silly question, but why upgrade all the time anyway? If something works, why replace it? What's going to come out that will magically increase productivity?
Re:and then.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft does this with updates. Sometimes it's sensible to EOL a product (stop releasing bug/security fixes), usually when the new one, supposedly better, is released. They did this with Win2K just before the Vista was out but they had XP to lean on. Then, they were to EOL XP, too - just to boost Vista sales. Not going to work, though - Vista is bad for business. There are too many issues with it - confusing licensing model, bad hardware support, bad apps support, you name it.
This time around businesses might just hold onto XP until new Windows is released and it proves to be an improvement over XP.
Microsoft is not as strong in a desktop area as it used to be, after all the goodness coming out of Linux distros and Apple. If they try to be tough and EOL XP while Vista is the only MS alternative, it'll be like trowing a chair in their own face.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I sense a Ferengi joke in here somewhere...
Re:and then.... (Score:5, Funny)
You must be some sort of Communist.
Re:and then.... (Score:5, Funny)
Really! New OSes are so much faster, I recently brought an old 386-16 back into service by putting Vista on it, and it easily outperforms the latest quad-cores running XP and 2K3.
Re:and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
5 years ago I would have told you a 800x600 15" display works. Try upgrading to a 1600x1200 20", or better yet 20" 1600x1200 next to another monitor for dual monitor use. This also works, and works so much better that once you adapt to the new possibilities, the old way no longer 'works'.
Same with internet connectivity. Disk space. Etc.
Admittedly hardware, but you could say the same thing about some revolutionary software breakthroughs; Protected memory, fair scheduling, good filesystems, network filesystems, etc.
Ideally what you have now will always work for what you do now, but will limit you in what you can do in the future. You have to update what you have to update what you can then grow to do.
The trick is to weight he risks. If theres no noticable improvement, upgrade somewhere that isn't expected to be stable first. Test your updates. Make sure nothing breaks before you roll them out.
Re:and then.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess my key point was specifically related to upgrading to Vista. It makes no sense, outside of legacy apps, for anyone to still be stuck with anything predating 2000 if you need a Windows OS. Now, on a personal level, I'd say go with XP and 2003. They're a bit easier to support; but if you have a solid 2000 environment and there's no benefits to the new environment, stick with 2000.
I think MS plateaued Windows with XP/2003. Personally, I'd say at this time just focus on perfecting those systems. Apple can siphon off customers with minor releases. I mean, here's a thought. Why not release a $50 minor release every year. It can have a roll up plus added functionality that's been discovered over the past year. If they did that for XP, that's (a) essentially the cost of Vista by now and (b) would have kept businesses happy since they all splurged on that Software Assurance deal which, in retrospect, was a really shitty deal for the companies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:and then.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've gotten so spoiled with Linux desktop environments that I feel constricted and frustrated when I'm forced to use Windows. It makes a very noticeable difference. Browsing the web and something reminds you that you need to do task X, but you don't want to forget what you're doing now? Switch to a new desktop and do it, then switch back and everything is how you left it.
You needs may differ from mine, but I can tell you there are plenty of ways to "magically" increase productivity by switching operating systems for a lot of people.
Re:and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, "I get to call someone in Delhi, who will walk me through the script, and tell me to reinstall Windows if my problem isn't on the script?"
Fuck that.
We joke a lot about bit rot around here. It's applicable to frequently-updated development environments, where it might matter which version of which DLL you're using.
(Warning, I feel a rant coming on! I'm not flaming you, I'm flaming a certain dipshit who'll probably never read this, because it's been that kind of a weekend for me.)
In a production system, bits don't rot. The only bits that rot are the ones fucked with by dipshits who think that having "support" is so important that it's worth upgrading part of a production system without checking to see if the fucking latest version of foo-are will work with the currently-installed versions of bar-ware, baz-ware, and quux-ware.
Bits don't rot. The production system I was speaking of worked fine for five years, and it would have worked for another five years had I not been ordered to fuck with it. (Hard drive failure? No problem, the point of being a production system is that it's static, so we'll just load it off a drive image.! Hardware failure in 2012 and you can't reinstall the old OS on it? That's what virtual machines are for! We don't need to fucking upgrade just because some douchebag in a suit says that the old version isn't "supported". We've never fucking had to call support for the old version of the product, because it actually fucking worked!)
CAPTCHA: "coffee". Heh. I've had one too many, I guess, but at least I feel better now :)
Re:and then.... (Score:5, Interesting)
So it's not just the "suits" and your local "dipshit" that can be that bloody moronic, the vendors can be too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:and then.... (Score:5, Funny)
It seems everyone wants me to fix their Windows woes, not Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't work support do you? (Score:5, Interesting)
I see you don't work in "IT Support". If you did you would know how stupid that is. Large and even small companies either hire individuals or hire outsource IT companies for "Support" These individuals that "do" the actual support work are trained Techs or Engineers. They don't need to call MS and never do. When they do get stumped with a problem they either call a cohort in the business and ask them if they know of a fix or go online and in the case of Windoze go to the TechNet site or check the forums of answers. I know this for a fact I work for a company that does Outsourced IT for small to medium sized businesses. We NEVER! call Microsoft! We are engineers and most likely know their OS better than they do so why call and waste time?
Now for Joe and Jane user that works for a company that we support who are they going to call? They call us. That is what we get paid for. We are "Support" not Microsoft. We still support Win95 if needed. MS doesn't. Hell we will even support DOS if needed. We are Systems Engineers where I work. We work on systems. We don't care what it runs on. We will work on it. A MCSE is NOT a System Engineer. A real Systems Engineer maybe better at one system OS than the other but he can work on any of them. All systems are not Microsoft.
So what if Joe and Jane user decide to run Linux or a Sun desktop? Who are they going to call for support? They are going to call us that is what we get paid for and yes they will get support! You might get transfered to a different person but you will gladly get support. We support most flavors of Linux and Solaris. Most of our customers don't realize it but they may have an XP desktop but most of the backend servers that are serving them are running Solaris or Linux.
Actually we discourage the use of Vista and say that we don't really support it. Any Windoze boxes we put online are XP. We beg our customer NOT to get Vista. These days we are encouraging our clients to really look at Sun and Linux. One of our big points is if your going to have to learn a new desktop and a new office suite. Why not make the change to Linux or Solaris and be done with client licenses, malware, spyware, viruses, blue screens O' death, changing desktops, and on and on...
Personally I haven't even looked at Vista. I did watch my boss play with it for a week and then reload XP. (yes he's a Windows engineer) His evaluation? "What a piece of shit." I must admit I have turned Vista off a couple of times to load FC7 or Solaris10 on the machine infected by Vista. Vista is not an OS. It is an infection in itself.
Why will I not learn it or touch Vista? Anyone that has worked Windows support knows the scenario. You work on a system and it fails again it is now YOUR FAULT its broke. If I never touch it, then it is never my fault. What do I tell people when they cry to me about their Vista machine? "I told you not to buy that crap. Sorry I don't work on Vista."
Remember the "The Suit" that is screaming about support isn't the poor bastard that has to work on it. I am.
Re:and then.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Citation needed.
I think many people are staying with Windows XP because their computers are good enough. And that doesn't translate to throwing out their entire machine and spending loads on a Mac.
Hell, I'm still on Windows 2000, works fine for me!
And the only reason Vista nags so much, is because people (presumably Mac users) slagged off XP so much for not asking you, and said how OS X was better because you had to enter your password to do such things. So that's who we have to thank for that!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Open your eyes and look. My dad bought a Mac Laptop and has migrated to Linux. I'm typing this right now on an ex-Windows machine. Do you know anyone talking about the release of Gutsy? Pay attention.
Anyway if you want ones in the news.. here;
http://www.news.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html [news.com]
http://mtechit.com/linux-biz/ [mtechit.com] Open the links for the list of businesses in each sector using Linux.
And ones that we know about from the SCO debacle are Auto Zone and Daimler Chrystler.
Hell, I'm still on W
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My guess is that the dvd app paused when it lost focus, or got minimized?
The reality is, this feature is easily turned off, even if you want to leave UAC on.
Type 'secpol.msc' into the start menu's "search/run" text area, go to
Local Policies->Security options and change
User Account Control: Switch to secure desktop when prompting for elevation to be disabled.
That way, there's no jarring thud of the screenshot being taken, and the switch to the d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess is that the dvd app paused when it lost focus, or got minimized?
The reality is, this feature is easily turned off, even if you want to leave UAC on.
Type 'secpol.msc' into the start menu's "search/run" text area, go to
Local Policies->Security options and change
User Account Control: Switch to secure desktop when prompting for elevation to be disabled.
Oh! Well if it's that easy, he can just call up his wife and tell her how stupid they both were for not noticing this right away and fixing it beforehand...
Honestly, if the fix for 'bad UI' is 'go dig around in the system for an obscure setting to disable', that's bad engineering.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the business world, most businesses not in the graphics or publishing business have transitioned off the Mac in the 90's. They aren't going to go through it again back to Mac just because the current revision of OS does not give them c
Re:and then.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Regarding your wife's laptop - boot dialog boxes? What are you talking about? Do you have a ton of crapware on there? Are you talking about waiting for the BIOS to do its checks? I've played countless DVD's on my Vista box using WMP and I've never had a problem with a single one. I've definitely never had any Java related prompts. Either your DVD came with some kind of DRM / player installer or you're using some craptastic 3rd party player. Either way, I wouldn't blame Vista because you didn't test your presentation beforehand.
Dual monitors? Of course Vista works with dual monitors, so does XP. I'm running two monitors on Vista right now, and I can hook up four.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Check the copyright date, release date, and the expiration date. It has been polished a few times and put back on the shelf so you can still buy a few "New" copies.
I know, don't tell me. *****WHOSH*****
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Um no. The presentation was tested, then made just fine twice. The third film in the series it decided to ask permission to let Java do something.. right in the middle of a running presentation. To make matters worse, we were not running a browser or any other java application. It was a pop-up plain and simple. It was n
Re:and then.... (Score:4, Informative)
3 second fix.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:and then.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Java was trying to do an update or someting. Vista knows this requires admin privilages. It was the Vista Dialog Box! Vista informed me that Java needed permission
I have had Java update on my Ubuntu machine. It didn't interupt what was running to do so. I have had Ubuntu kindly inform me updates are avaliable to install. This also didn't stop anything else that was running.
This halt the show to provide the OS with an OK for another application to proceed is the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
did you do this?
Re:and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Short answer YES. Java needed permission. Vista stopped the other running application cold to ask permission.
Asking permission with a notification icon is one thing on a dual monitor set up. Stopping the running movie is not acceptable behavior.
It is like having your engine in the car shut off because the passanger removed the seatbelt. Pardon me, but isn't the light on the dash enough?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHA... breath breathe... hahahahahhahaha -- that is the funniest thing I have heard on a long long time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NT's security model is actually more robust and provides more security than the *nix model. (Remember the designers came from VMS, not an unsecure OS by any means.)
Just because XP let users run as the root equivalent so that compatibility would not break from Win9X applications that had no idea about security. If MS would have designed a 'root' or security prompt into XP instead of waiting until Vista to do this, it wou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean Linux on the desktop, right? Linux is already a pretty big presence in the server space.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know why this guy is marked as a troll, but from a business perspective Vista does not offer anything to security or productivity that WinXP can't provide already provide with the proper patches. Of course there is Office 2007 (which I do like personally) but that still runs fine on WinXP.
Secondly, most admins in IT loathe change and the unknown. They are familiar with WinXP and all its quirks and the desire to be "cut
Upgrades Need Justification in Business (Score:5, Interesting)
A 1-gigahertz desktop running Windows XP with ECC memory meets the needs of most businesses. They had a genuine need to upgrade from the MS-DOS-based operating systems (OSes) like Windows 98 when Windows XP was launched. The former is just too unreliable, but the latter approached Linux-level reliability.
Going from Windows XP to Vista does not buy you a quantum leap in reliability. The latter has a nicer GUI than the former, but a nicer user interface is not enough to justify spending another $1000+ on a machine for your secretary.
During this obssessive drive to faster, bigger, and badder computers and OSes, eventually the technology reaches a point at which it exceeds the needs of the customers. We have reached that point -- that knee of the technology curve. Any further technical advancements beyond the knee does not bring new customers to computer company XYZ. The computer-systems market now resembles or will soon resemble the automotive market: a replacement market for broken devices.
I do not replace my Chevrolet Camaro when a new sports car enters the automotive market. I replace my Camaro when it becomes too expensive to repair.
No spokesperson for a computer company ever talks about the arrival of the "knee". It means flat sales and thin margins for the company.
Well, the knee has arrived. The personal-computer industry is now a mature industry like the automotive industry. Welcome to flat sales and used-computer salescritters.
Speaking of business plans (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm astonished that I have yet to see the best reason not to roll out Vista in a business environment mentioned. The answer is quite simple.
Vista kills productivity, yet offers no real value in return.
In order to run Vista where I work, we would have to replace every single machine we have. That's over 100 desktops and laptops--not cheap. Granted, some of those computers need to be replaced, but that's beside the point. Even crappy P4, 1GHZ, 256MB RAM, on-board video computers run XP better than a brand new Dell laptop with 2GB RAM and a 256MB video card runs Vista (it was running Vista Business Premium). Why in the @#$%! should we pay a boatload of money to slash our workers' productivity? As far as I can see, there is absolutely no business case for Vista whatsoever. Until such a day as there is, then you can bet your bottom dollar I won't allow a move to Vista to kill ours.
Granted, from a technological standpoint, Vista is crap. But that's not the argument to make to your superiors when opposing it. Show them how it will hurt your bottom line. That'll get their attention.
Re:Speaking of business plans (Score:5, Insightful)
All technology aside, replacing the entire look'n'feel for our user base (office 2007 + Vista) would be a huge productivity killer for months, with no benefit whatsoever.
I'd like to have some better feature support, and I know that Vista has some sort of "corporate desktop theme", but the training overhead just kills me every time I think about it.
Now from a tech perspective - I can buy a brand new core 2 duo based desktop that will run XP at light speed, or stick them with a slow and bloated vista install... I'm personally inclined to skip vista and use what is "known" by our user base.
Does it bother me that we're rolling out new machines with an OS from 2001? yes. yes it does. but Vista isn't a solution in any way, shape, or form.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that a fresh install of XP in its 25 October 2001 incarnation probably wouldn't stand up against Vista at its release date, but businesses are unlikley to be comparing un-patched Vista vs un-patched XP. Vista patched vs XP patched, in a corporate environment, where usually AV is installed and maintained, there is a nice firewall to protect internal clients, there may even be an IDS to spot anything that was missed and other MS technologies are being used to 'lock down' the computers to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When the first n-month periods after initial release of each OS are compared, the number of vulnerabilities and exploits found in Vista is significantly lower than it was in Windows XP. We also know why that is (Microsoft finally hired security professionals and imposed rigorous internal pre-release and in-development security audits).
1) What study?
2) According to the statement above, they compared the vulnerabilities detected in corresponding periods after release.
3) The number of vulnerabilities does not equal number of actual exploits, although if you look at the criticality of the vulnerabilities and the time it takes to patch, you get some idea about the company selling the OS, not the OS itself.
4) You don't need to, and generally cannot compare figures to get a valid idea of security there are too many other factors involved.
Can y
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You listed a load of technologies, I pointed out what I thought of them 2 of them didn't seem to bring any benefit, one (the user privileges element) will have a massive impact on the home user, but much less on the corporate. I pointed out that with regards to KPP there are issues that devalue its impact and I stated that ASLR was a good preventative mechanism but not a show stopper. None of that is untrue nor it is factually incorrect as far as I am aware, if
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Vista vs XP, Vista is more secure.
Vista vs XP in a corporate environment with all the additional security systems and procedures already present, Vista is *not* significantly more secure than XP.
Since Vista requires a large investment in terms of hardware, licensing, training and time for migration, the significance of any minor security improvement is reduced.
Would a haulage operator re-purchase all of his vehicles because a new one was
WIndows 7 - better? (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista is not a total failure, but its not a success either.
Re:WIndows 7 - better? (Score:5, Interesting)
Your grammar error calls to mind a metaphor.
If you take a badly exposed piece of film and put in the developer too long, you get out
Vista is the same way. The development time is really irrelevant: the fact that they spent a long time on it just means that it has *lots* of shitty features rather than only a few.
Re:WIndows 7 - better? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WIndows 7 - better? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ever since XP was released with their activation, it
disable trackpads? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's this about? Anyone want to clue me in?
Re:disable trackpads? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:disable trackpads? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
vista system hog (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:vista system hog (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey why not just bypass WINDOWS? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Win 7 VMing of Unsigned code is bigger trun off... (Score:3, Interesting)
The VMing sound like a good idea but knowing MS they will just find a way to mess up or drive ram and cpu use for it to very high levels.
Also one VM per app will not work that well.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
"every other update" ??? Not even close. (Score:2)
Novell 4 (check)
Windows 95 (check)
$2000.00
Glad I don't work there anymore
And will it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Will it be full of anti-user software and self-disabling drivers? Absolutely.
Im just about fed up with Microsoft.
Im used to the music and video companies treating customers like criminals, but MS with their remote computer deactivation garbage sets them far over the line. As far as I'm concerned, Im going Ubuntu and Debian.
BTW, Ubuntu likes my new T61 thinkpad. And IBM/Lenovo is Linux friendly.
The problem with waiting for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
The simple reality is tht, once you all out of step on the treadmill, then working to stay on it doesn't continue to look as attractive as it used to. Lock in is quite important to Microsoft's business model, and failing to keep businesses in step with current MS trends is actually quite a serious potential problem brewing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The problem with waiting for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux could most certainly power a strong desktop client but with the direction it has at the moment and always has had that won't happen.
Not to mention that my PC at home running Vista will run any Windows application you throw at it. You claim of "Vistas difficulties with such things" seems a bit unfounded to me. I agree that you sometimes might have to drop into emulation mode which should be transparent to the user and therefore needs some attention. However, I have yet to find any app that won't work on Vista.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux as it is now will NEVER be any sort of viable replacement to Windows. The biggest problem Linux has is its lack of a central authority. There are too many distributions with low standardization.
Ultimately that is simply an artifact of the current niche status of Linux. If linux ever started to get real traction and market share on the desktop do you really think this would still be the case? The reality is that if linux gets popular on the desktop it will be a few particular distros, maybe Ubuntu, Redhat and Novell at most. And those 3 distros will be all the avergae public will know of linux -- the other distros will continue to exist of course, in their small market niches, but no-one except th
Not to call you a dumb-ass... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because I understand where you're coming from but you seem confused about something. Linux doesn't have to do shit to succeed. That's the kernel and you can harp on it till you're blue in the face but you're still going to be harping on the wrong portion. And before you get the idea that what I'm pointing out
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux as it is now will NEVER be any sort of viable replacement to Windows. The biggest problem Linux has is its lack of a central authority. There are too many distributions with low standardization.
You don't need a central authority, just a proper distro. I suck at Linux in general and am in no way qualified to pull together a whole system from scratch. But I don't have to. Pop in Ubuntu and I'm ready to go. The Ubuntu people are handling all of the vetting of software going into the distro.
If a couple of the major software companies out there decided to set a target for a Linux distro for business, call it Biznux, that would work just fine. If you put a few big names on it like IBM, Sun, Adobe, poin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Open office runs on all distros and looks the same on all of them, so does ut2k4 for that matter. Anyone who thinks this "too many distros" objection is a valid point (MODERATOR) doesn't have enough perspective to be commenting on the subject.
Re:The problem with waiting for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Some entities are going to Vista eventually... (Score:3, Informative)
M$ need to move corporate keys back to XP system.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Businesses do not like the idea that there vista system must call in to M$ to check there key from time to time or go in to limited functionality mode or use a key sever that calls in to M$ and systems can also go in to limited functionality mode if the sever / network goes down.
And if vista starts to gain more ground this may end become a big problem that limited testing be for a big roll is something that you may not run in to at that time and you may have to hope for a fast fix it your key gets blacklisted by mistake and most of your systems go in to limited functionality mode.
Vista was 3 years late! (Score:5, Interesting)
At what point does Vista join Win ME? (Score:4, Insightful)
The cynic in me says it doesn't matter because the DRM core of the OS will never get the criticism it deserves and, thus, any follow-on OS will be just as bad. No OS that manages someone else's rights without giving a hoot for mine will ever run on my hardware.
The vista push (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead, the real danger to MS is a push to thin clients. I've heard rumblings lately, and if the next OS dissappoints like vista, you can expect huge deployments of thin clients coming. I know it would make more financial sense for my location when time comes to upgrade from XP to go with thin clients chatting with a windows terminal server. There is risk involved with this step, but if we see another crappy OS come out, it will be the justification I need to validate the switch over.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
We're already bypassing it (Score:5, Interesting)
Increasing performance gap benefits Linux and Mac (Score:3, Insightful)
We are going to wait.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Vista might not be the utter stinking turd that ME was but it's a painful bowel movement nonetheless.
Here's to hoping Microsoft gets on the clue bus with Windows 7...
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Dateline Detroit - 1959 (Score:3)
Cheers
Was Microsoft joking? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, in reading this article, I have just been enlightened. I realize that all this time, I was confused because I didn't understand the purpose of Windows Vista. You see, I thought it was Microsoft's way of making a really, really funny joke. I mean, what else could Vista possibly be? Let's examine Vista and see why this is so:
- Every other button you push, the entire screen goes black and it asks you, "Did you really push that button?"
- The system is so excruciatingly slow that even on the newest hardware, it is much, much slower than XP on much older hardware.
- Boatloads of drivers and applications that worked fine under XP do not function under Vista. The result is that things like printers that were supported just fine under XP do not work under Vista. The result is that you have to throw away your perfectly good printer or whatever, and get a new one, as if having just bought a brand new computer and dropping a ton of money on Vista Ultimate isn't enough of an expense.
- The Vista installer takes F*O*R*E*V*E*R to load, and then gleefully tells you that Windows Vista "saves you time," as if to demonstrate that if the installer is this slow, wait 'till you experience the operating system!
- The colors chosen for the Vista desktop and windows are such an eyesore that even their own mother couldn't possibly like them. I'd like to know what the graphic designers were smoking, because I want some.
- There are not one or two but six different versions of Vista. Do they suddenly think they're in the Linux business because it seems they want to scream out, "We're just like Linux; we have too many distros to choose from too!" (Well, I think someone mentioned that RMS wanted Vista to be called GNU/Vista or something like that.)
- Even if you're an expert XP user, you have to completely relearn how to use a computer when you downgrade to Vista, because everything is so significantly different that you'll have a field day just figuring out how to move a file from one place to another.
So, I mean, what else but a really funny joke could this be? A product?But having read this story, I now understand that there are actually people who worked on this Vista thing who believed that they were making a serious software product. The only thing I can think to say is that this is a tremendous shame. I mean, Windows XP can do pretty much anything that a business might need. All they had to do was spend the last five years or so perfecting XP, ironing out all the bugs, cleaning it up as much as they could, optimizing it for better performance, tightening up security, etc. That would have given them a very solid product with which to compete. Instead, they wasted all this effort, time, and money making a product so embarrassingly slow and bloated, even on the newest hardware, that many businesses are avoiding it like the plague. I'm sorry but I really think that Vista is an enormous flop, even if Microsoft is successful in selling millions of copies. The point is that Vista is actually a very good advertisement for Apple Macs with Mac OS X, and for Linux and the *BSDs.
Their motto used to be "Where do you want to go today?" I don't know about you, but as my sig and journal both say, Microsoft released Vista, so I went to an Apple retail store and bought a Mac.
Ok. No email about the world's finest software company is complete without a remark that calls for chairs to be thrown... but I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.
Why Windows SEVEN???? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, well, we know M$ can't write software, I guess they can't count either.
Some won't switch90 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What is so bad about Vista? (Score:5, Insightful)
The same things that're bad with XP (Score:5, Informative)
0. DRM throughout the system.
1. If a dialog box pops up, you can't move or resize the parent window. WHY ISN'T THIS FIXED YET?
2. It's slow and bloated, even on modern hardware.
3. Its user interface is inconsistent. (OK, KDE and Gnome are pretty bad this way, too, but OS-X isn't, for instance.)
4. DRM.
5. Intrusive security model.
6. Requires re-training of end-users, which is expensive. (Had to add this one, as it's always used as a "reason" to not move to Linux or OpenOffice.)
7. Invasive anti-piracy model.
8. DRM.
9. No compelling reason to upgrade from XP.
As you can see, there are lots of reasons MS-Windows Vista is not good, even on modern hardware. However, if it floats your boat, continue using it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Results 1 - 10 of about 101,000,000 for linux problems.
Results 1 - 10 of about 95,000 for windows "sucks ass"
Results 1 - 10 of about 44,000 for linux "sucks ass".
Results 1 - 10 of about 32,300,000 for vista problems. (0.13 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,220,000 for RHEL problems. (0.15 seconds
So What's your point?
Re:What is so bad about Vista? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What is so bad about Vista? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Better question... (Score:4, Insightful)
When you do that on Vista, it looks like total utter crap - which is not fine.
So, would you rather use something that looks perfectly fine or total utter crap?
OS X eye candy is useful (Score:5, Insightful)
It subconsciously gives me information and it useful.
The eye candy on my XP desktop at work is not useful, is mostly annoying, and doesn't help me understand my environment. That's a HUGE difference.
Re:What is so bad about Vista? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:too late, too early, too in-between ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or in other words:
Vista is the new Millenium.
Re:too late, too early, too in-between ... (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words: every OS could boast the same sale figures... if it came preinstalled in every PC.
RT
--
Your Bookmarks. Anywhere. Anytime. [simplybookmarks.com]
Re:Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's probably a good thing they didn't.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The early versions of Linux were definitely for the tech savvy only. Driver support was lousy and you usually spent a lot of time on the command line getting yourself going. That's not something Joe Schmoe is going to want to do on his own.
It's not just tech savvy. It's tech savvy and masochistic. Just because I have plenty of experience editing configuration files, compiling code or writing/debugging device drivers from the hardware spec, that doesn't mean I want to spend my valuable free time doing it just to be able to use basic applications.
Re:This is a grate time for apple make osX for all (Score:4, Informative)
Apple and Microsoft think a lot alike these days. My pre-order Leopard disk was damaged and after an hour on the phone with Apple, I was sent to the nearest Apple store who bitched me out for not having a receipt. Now consider that they only give you a packing slip with the shipment and my Mac would not boot to print it! I didn't notice it right away and skipped the disc check the first time. I realize that part is my fault but I didn't appreciate the terrible customer service from the Briarwood Apple store (Ann Arbor, MI).
At work we've decided not to upgrade to Leopard until Parallels actually works with it and we can buy more RAM. We have labs full of iMacs bought over the summer!
Lastly, the advantage with OS X in the past was the control over hardware. Do you really think OS X would run well on a beater Dell? I don't.
The failure with vista was the marketing. Microsoft can't come up with one reason to get people to upgrade. Perhaps if they only shipped x64 vista it might have been an incentive for some. It worked with Windows 95. Most people are running 32bit vista. I've been using it since January and it's not too bad for a new Windows release. You must feed it RAM, but that's true of Macs or some of the bigger Linux distros too.