M
Michael Palumbo
I'm so confused . . .
Now let me start by saying I'm not a Microsoft, Linux, Mac, or any kind of
"Fan-Boy" at all. I use what works for the task at hand and I now have a
Windows machine dual-booting with Linux, and a dedicated Linux machine
serving as a, well, a server.
My confusion is this . . .
I read so many complaints that talk about how "unusable" and how "horribly
broken" Vista is.
I'll admit, I'm getting tired of my machine constantly (at least a few times
a week) informing me that, "The video driver has stopped responding and
recovered successfully," and Media Center crashing at least twice a week,
but other than that, I'm really having no issues with Vista at all.
And no, I don't just watch TV and run screen-savers with it, as I'm sure
some will accuse me of. I have a degree in computer engineering and have
been working with computers, both as a hobby and professionally for the
better part of 25 years now.
If Vista (or any OS) causes you a large amount of problems, or if you simply
don't like the way it does its job, don't use it.
If it were up to me I'd still be using a pure command-line OS, even with all
this graphics power we now have, and on my Gentoo server, I do, but Vista
works, and I don't see all the problems people are reporting, at least not
on my machine, and jobs that I've gone on where people were reporting
problems were mostly due to one of three things . . .
1> They simply couldn't find what they were looking for in the GUI. This is
most common, in my experience. Many things have been moved. In my opinion
to more logical places, but people are used to where they were before, so
they look for them in those locations. Was this a good idea on Microsoft's
part? I'm going to say, "No" on this one, even though I like the new
layouts better. Why do I say it wasn't a good idea? Because most people
are averse to change, they get comfortable doing things in a certain way and
if you change things on them, they get lost and frustrated.
2> Drivers. This is a close second to #1. Too many hardware manufacturers
either were late, or never produced, drivers for existing hardware. Some of
the blame can by placed on Microsoft. They could have chosen to ensure that
all XP drivers would work on Vista, but they chose to write the OS with
security in mind and allowing the "shortcuts" that too many hardware (and
software) manufacturers used in XP would negate much of the improved
security features in Vista. I'll assume they chose what they felt was the
lesser of two evils. Keep compatibility and sacrifice some security or
tighten up the security and lose some compatibility.
3> Could really be added to #2, but it's really a separate issue.
Software. Vista, while retaining much of XPs feature set and core, is a new
operating system. Did Microsoft try to maintain backwards compatibility
with older software? I'm sure they did, but it's not possible to be 100%
compatible with everything out there. Again, some of the blame is on
Microsoft, but much of it can be placed on software companies as well. I'm
not talking about that $2 bit of share-ware, nor am I referring to software
written years ago by a company that no longer supports that software, or
perhaps doesn't even exist any more, I'm talking about software that costs a
lot of money, and knowing that Vista was on the way (and yes, they ALL had
advanced API software long before Vista shipped) they should have at least
provided patches for their top-dollar software as soon as Vista was
released. Too many of these companies, once they have your money, don't
care about providing much support and will tell you, "Oh, we aren't
supporting Vista with that version, you'll have to pay us another thousand
dollars for the new version, that will work with Vista." This is not that
they are lazy, it's their business model. Repeat customers is where the
money is, so what's better than a forced repeat? If you've become dependant
on that software, but want the new OS and need that software, you'll shell
out the money for the new version so you can have your cake and eat it too,
that's what they are counting on and will often only patch the incompatible
software if enough public demand (IE: they won't buy the new version) is
there for a patch.
Anyway, the point is, many, if not all, of the problems I've been called out
for have been due to these issues (I'm not including the mal-ware factor
here) and not directly the fault of Vista being, "So badly written it should
be scrapped and Microsoft should start from scratch with a new OS", as I've
read in this, and other forums more than once.
Okay, I'm donning my asbestos pajamas and await the attacks.
Mic
Now let me start by saying I'm not a Microsoft, Linux, Mac, or any kind of
"Fan-Boy" at all. I use what works for the task at hand and I now have a
Windows machine dual-booting with Linux, and a dedicated Linux machine
serving as a, well, a server.
My confusion is this . . .
I read so many complaints that talk about how "unusable" and how "horribly
broken" Vista is.
I'll admit, I'm getting tired of my machine constantly (at least a few times
a week) informing me that, "The video driver has stopped responding and
recovered successfully," and Media Center crashing at least twice a week,
but other than that, I'm really having no issues with Vista at all.
And no, I don't just watch TV and run screen-savers with it, as I'm sure
some will accuse me of. I have a degree in computer engineering and have
been working with computers, both as a hobby and professionally for the
better part of 25 years now.
If Vista (or any OS) causes you a large amount of problems, or if you simply
don't like the way it does its job, don't use it.
If it were up to me I'd still be using a pure command-line OS, even with all
this graphics power we now have, and on my Gentoo server, I do, but Vista
works, and I don't see all the problems people are reporting, at least not
on my machine, and jobs that I've gone on where people were reporting
problems were mostly due to one of three things . . .
1> They simply couldn't find what they were looking for in the GUI. This is
most common, in my experience. Many things have been moved. In my opinion
to more logical places, but people are used to where they were before, so
they look for them in those locations. Was this a good idea on Microsoft's
part? I'm going to say, "No" on this one, even though I like the new
layouts better. Why do I say it wasn't a good idea? Because most people
are averse to change, they get comfortable doing things in a certain way and
if you change things on them, they get lost and frustrated.
2> Drivers. This is a close second to #1. Too many hardware manufacturers
either were late, or never produced, drivers for existing hardware. Some of
the blame can by placed on Microsoft. They could have chosen to ensure that
all XP drivers would work on Vista, but they chose to write the OS with
security in mind and allowing the "shortcuts" that too many hardware (and
software) manufacturers used in XP would negate much of the improved
security features in Vista. I'll assume they chose what they felt was the
lesser of two evils. Keep compatibility and sacrifice some security or
tighten up the security and lose some compatibility.
3> Could really be added to #2, but it's really a separate issue.
Software. Vista, while retaining much of XPs feature set and core, is a new
operating system. Did Microsoft try to maintain backwards compatibility
with older software? I'm sure they did, but it's not possible to be 100%
compatible with everything out there. Again, some of the blame is on
Microsoft, but much of it can be placed on software companies as well. I'm
not talking about that $2 bit of share-ware, nor am I referring to software
written years ago by a company that no longer supports that software, or
perhaps doesn't even exist any more, I'm talking about software that costs a
lot of money, and knowing that Vista was on the way (and yes, they ALL had
advanced API software long before Vista shipped) they should have at least
provided patches for their top-dollar software as soon as Vista was
released. Too many of these companies, once they have your money, don't
care about providing much support and will tell you, "Oh, we aren't
supporting Vista with that version, you'll have to pay us another thousand
dollars for the new version, that will work with Vista." This is not that
they are lazy, it's their business model. Repeat customers is where the
money is, so what's better than a forced repeat? If you've become dependant
on that software, but want the new OS and need that software, you'll shell
out the money for the new version so you can have your cake and eat it too,
that's what they are counting on and will often only patch the incompatible
software if enough public demand (IE: they won't buy the new version) is
there for a patch.
Anyway, the point is, many, if not all, of the problems I've been called out
for have been due to these issues (I'm not including the mal-ware factor
here) and not directly the fault of Vista being, "So badly written it should
be scrapped and Microsoft should start from scratch with a new OS", as I've
read in this, and other forums more than once.
Okay, I'm donning my asbestos pajamas and await the attacks.
Mic