Is Vista crash proof? Nope...

[The Traveler]

I read that Vista was supposed to be much better at preventing hard
crashes. Well, read-on...

a. Burnt a backup of some of my applications to a DVD

b. Tried to read the DVD

c. The DVD reader kept on going and going (non-stop)

d. All desktop applications started to lose their focus (can't close
them, can't start any, etc.)

e. Ctrl-Alt-Del failed to bring-up the Program Manager

f. The screen became a milky while (20% transparent) and nothing
worked

g. Popped-out the DVD without any resolution.

h. I had to reboot the computer!

Tried this twice in my MadDog 10x drive.

i. Popped-out the DVD and tried it in my other drive, a SONY DVD
burner

j. Problems noted in steps b - h repeated.

k. After last reboot, I did NOT install the DVD and all ran fine

l. I checked in the Event Viewer and this is where I saw that the
problem was caused by bad sectors on the DVD.

So... I burnt another copy and this time all went well.

Conclusion --> Based on my (very) subjective tests, if Vista is trying
to read a bad DVD, it will maintain full focuss and not let you do
anything else. This is NOT how it worked in XP Pro (sigh)

Comments?


My system:
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-M59SLI-S5 w/nVIDIA nForce 590 SLI
RAM: 2048 MB (Corsair TWIN2X2048-6400PRO - DDR2-800, PC2-6400)
BIOS: Award Modular (06/19/06)
Video: BFG - NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GT OC (w/512 MB DDR3)
Case: Antec 900-series
PSU: Thermaltake "Thoughpower" 650W, model W0128RU
Main HDD: WDC WD740ADFD-00NLR1 "Raptor" (74 GB, 10,000 RPM SATA-II)
Data HDD: ST3300622AS (300 GB, 7200 RPM, SATA-II)
O/S: Microsoft Windows Vista Business
AV: AVG Pro 7.5x
AS/FW: Microsoft OneCare suite

______________________

The Traveller
Oceanside, California

 

[Justin]

1. "crash proof" and "better at preventing hard crashes" are two completely
different things. Which one are you actually addressing?

MS never claimed Vista was crash proof.

2. Before addressing whether or not Vista is better at handling crashes you
first need a machine with nothing but certified drivers. Do you have that?

However, to address your comment. I have had Vista not able to read
DVD+-Rs. The reason they could not be read was because they were old and no
other machine or drive could read them either.

Vista simply gave up trying to read them and let me continue fine.

 

[The Traveler]

I read that Vista was supposed to be much better at preventing hard
crashes. Well, read-on...

a. Burnt a backup of some of my applications to a DVD

b. Tried to read the DVD

c. The DVD reader kept on going and going (non-stop)

d. All desktop applications started to lose their focus (can't close
them, can't start any, etc.)

e. Ctrl-Alt-Del failed to bring-up the Program Manager

f. The screen became a milky while (20% transparent) and nothing
worked

g. Popped-out the DVD without any resolution.

h. I had to reboot the computer!

Tried this twice in my MadDog 10x drive.

i. Popped-out the DVD and tried it in my other drive, a SONY DVD
burner

j. Problems noted in steps b - h repeated.

k. After last reboot, I did NOT install the DVD and all ran fine

l. I checked in the Event Viewer and this is where I saw that the
problem was caused by bad sectors on the DVD.

So... I burnt another copy and this time all went well.

Conclusion --> Based on my (very) subjective tests, if Vista is trying
to read a bad DVD, it will maintain full focuss and not let you do
anything else. This is NOT how it worked in XP Pro (sigh)

Comments?


My system:
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-M59SLI-S5 w/nVIDIA nForce 590 SLI
RAM: 2048 MB (Corsair TWIN2X2048-6400PRO - DDR2-800, PC2-6400)
BIOS: Award Modular (06/19/06)
Video: BFG - NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GT OC (w/512 MB DDR3)
Case: Antec 900-series
PSU: Thermaltake "Thoughpower" 650W, model W0128RU
Main HDD: WDC WD740ADFD-00NLR1 "Raptor" (74 GB, 10,000 RPM SATA-II)
Data HDD: ST3300622AS (300 GB, 7200 RPM, SATA-II)
O/S: Microsoft Windows Vista Business
AV: AVG Pro 7.5x
AS/FW: Microsoft OneCare suite

______________________

The Traveller
Oceanside, California

To add insult to injury, the same problem appeared when a USB HDD
shutdown occurred due to current draw (had not powered it). Vista did
not know what to do and even when I told it to restart Explorer, it
failed. The only way out was a reboot of the system.

As an FYI, in XP Pro, these types of failures were recoverable. In
Vista, they seem to be catastrophic (sigh)

______________________

The Traveller
Oceanside, California

 

[The Traveler]

1. "crash proof" and "better at preventing hard crashes" are two completely
different things. Which one are you actually addressing?

MS never claimed Vista was crash proof.

2. Before addressing whether or not Vista is better at handling crashes you
first need a machine with nothing but certified drivers. Do you have that?

However, to address your comment. I have had Vista not able to read
DVD+-Rs. The reason they could not be read was because they were old and no
other machine or drive could read them either.

Vista simply gave up trying to read them and let me continue fine.

Crash Proof? I should have stated "more robust than XP Pro". (My
mistake).

As an FYI, my DVD issue was caused by a bad bloc on the DVD. However,
that's not the point.

My point is that under XP Pro, being unable to read a DVD (or
completely read it) did not crash XP. Windows Explorer simply
restarted. In Vista, Windows Explorer fails to start and the only way
out is to reboot.

If you read my follow-up posting, you will see that I encountered the
same problem if my USB drive stops while Windows Explorer is reading
it. Once again, under XP Pro, this was not a catastrophic failure as
Windows Explorer simply restarted. In Vista, I need to reboot... which
is >> not << normal as Vista is supposed to be more robust than XP.

As for "certified drivers", nope, not all are certified. For example,
my NVIDIA drivers are still in BETA (nothing else available). If
certified drivers were available, I would use them. That's another
disappointment. When XP came out, I had far less problems with
drivers. This time, we are still waiting for NVIDIA drivers, FW
software, and other hardware drivers. One has no choice but to use
what is available (in most cases BETA drivers). Granted, XP supported
most of the legacy 16-bit drivers, which is not the case for Vista.

______________________

The Traveller
Oceanside, California

 

[Justin]

My point is that under XP Pro, being unable to read a DVD (or
completely read it) did not crash XP. Windows Explorer simply
restarted. In Vista, Windows Explorer fails to start and the only way
out is to reboot.

Yea, I got that. I don't experience that.

If you read my follow-up posting, you will see that I encountered the
same problem if my USB drive stops while Windows Explorer is reading
it. Once again, under XP Pro, this was not a catastrophic failure as
Windows Explorer simply restarted. In Vista, I need to reboot... which
is >> not << normal as Vista is supposed to be more robust than XP.

I read it. Then I plugged in my 360 HD-DVD drive without the power turned
on. Nothing. I then plugged it in with proper power and it worked fine (as
usual) then I yanked the power from the drive. Bye bye, drive. No
problems. That's all I can test myself.

As for "certified drivers", nope, not all are certified. For example,
my NVIDIA drivers are still in BETA (nothing else available). If
certified drivers were available, I would use them.

"all are certified"??? Are or are not? Wait for better drivers then see if
your problem still exists.

That's another
disappointment. When XP came out, I had far less problems with
drivers. This time, we are still waiting for NVIDIA drivers, FW

I believe you. However many many many many other people did not. In this
case, our roles would be reversed. I had nightmares with XP when it was
released....until better drivers came out.

 

[Clenna Lumina]

1. "crash proof" and "better at preventing hard crashes" are two
completely different things. Which one are you actually addressing?

Sign... you know full well vista is anything but "better at preventing
hard crashes", let alone "crash proof", as the simplest of drivers of
programs installed can cause so much instablity it's like working wit ha
house of cards. This is from doign a lot of testing mind you, on custom
build and store bought machines.

MS never claimed Vista was crash proof.

Several television commercials in the states claiemd exactly that.

2. Before addressing whether or not Vista is better at handling
crashes you first need a machine with nothing but certified drivers.
Do you have that?

Yes that can sometimes make a difference, but even signed ones can bring
a system ot it's knees.

However, to address your comment. I have had Vista not able to read
DVD+-Rs. The reason they could not be read was because they were old
and no other machine or drive could read them either.

Alough the OP distinctly said he didn't have those problems under XP.

Vista simply gave up trying to read them and let me continue fine.

This is a problem thats inherent in Vista and the changes they made that
breaks the way many programs isntall, espically those centered around
drivers. Too things are broken, drivers are being rushed out and not
tested enough, and that just causes more problems.

If Microsoft just fixed XP and gave the extra stuff as some sort of
bonus pack, then I think everyone would be happy.

 

[Wayne M. Poe]

To add insult to injury, the same problem appeared when a USB HDD
shutdown occurred due to current draw (had not powered it). Vista did
not know what to do and even when I told it to restart Explorer, it
failed. The only way out was a reboot of the system.

As an FYI, in XP Pro, these types of failures were recoverable. In
Vista, they seem to be catastrophic (sigh)

In my own experiences, I've found Explorer and IE7 in Vista to be
incredibly fragile. The slightly program/plugin/whatever it doesn't
agree with, it starts getting problems or crahes out right. In the case
of IE 7, I've had to refused to start, over 5 reboots, then on the 6th
boot, after about 20 minutes, it suddenly started working again. Nothing
was changed during that time, it was just _completely_ random.

 

[Justin]

Interesting. You added nothing to the topic.

Several television commercials in the states claiemd exactly that.

BS. Link us. I've seen ALL the MS commercials. As stupid as they are, not
a single one of them made such a claim. Come on high speed! Send the links
out way.

 

[Beck]

I read that Vista was supposed to be much better at preventing hard
crashes. Well, read-on...

It is much better at preventing crashes. I don't think anyone ever said it
was "crash proof". I have had a number of times when a program has started
to crash and goes "not responding" only for Vista to recover from it and
continue the program normally.

 

[CJM]

Sign... you know full well vista is anything but "better at preventing
hard crashes", let alone "crash proof", as the simplest of drivers of
programs installed can cause so much instablity it's like working wit ha
house of cards.

Vista *is* more robust than XP. This is not subjective; there are real
architectural reasons why this is so. If you use x64 it is even moreso,
because it insists on signed drivers which tend to be much better quality.

The majority of Vista problems can be placed into two camps: problems with
drivers and problems with users. If hardware manuafacturers have been slow
to action, it is not Microsoft's fault - it's not like they've not seen it
coming. As for users, people don't like change, plus people have their own
tastes and preferences. All fair enough. Personally, I hate UAC. I wholly
understand the benefits, but I think it's a cumbersome implementation and I
hope it gets changed. But that does not make Vista a bad OS.

This is from doign a lot of testing mind you, on custom build and store
bought machines.

That's crap. If you had really done that much testing on different hardware
you would have identified the common problem areas and would have seen the
common successes. You have done neither; you sound exactly like every other
Vista nay-sayer.

If you'd had any experience of other OSes you would have been able to put
Vista into a more sensible context. I suspect it took you a while to get to
grips with XP and you don't want to lose your knowledge and start again. And
you certainly don't have any experience of the move from 16 to 32bit
otherwise the Vista situation would be more familiar.

I realise, of course, that all this is wasted. You are unlikely to become
any more open-minded or any less dogmatic, but I predict you'll be here in
3-5yrs time complaining that MS should have persisted with Vista instead of
releasing Vista+1...etc, etc....

 

[CJM]

It is much better at preventing crashes. I don't think anyone ever said
it was "crash proof". I have had a number of times when a program has
started to crash and goes "not responding" only for Vista to recover from
it and continue the program normally.

Indeed. That is my experience too.

I would say that when an application can't be recovered and does bomb-out,
I'd like to see Vista returning an indication of the error; it's a minor
PITA to have to fire up the event viewer to find out...

 

[Beck]

Indeed. That is my experience too.

I would say that when an application can't be recovered and does bomb-out,
I'd like to see Vista returning an indication of the error; it's a minor
PITA to have to fire up the event viewer to find out...

IIRC I have had Vista tell me what was wrong on a couple of occasions,
following the link they provided, it showed it was down to video drivers.

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Today, Wayne M. Poe made these interesting comments ...

In my own experiences, I've found Explorer and IE7 in Vista to
be incredibly fragile. The slightly program/plugin/whatever it
doesn't agree with, it starts getting problems or crahes out
right. In the case of IE 7, I've had to refused to start, over
5 reboots, then on the 6th boot, after about 20 minutes, it
suddenly started working again. Nothing was changed during
that time, it was just _completely_ random.

I am sure, but cannot prove of course, that MS did a very thorough
job of automated and human testing on Explorer and IE7, both
integral parts of the O/S, as well as extensive beta testing, so I
have to wonder how things as obvious as you report could've gotten
by them.

 

[Scott]

In my own experiences, I've found Explorer and IE7 in Vista to be
incredibly fragile. The slightly program/plugin/whatever it doesn't
agree with, it starts getting problems or crahes out right.

"Slighly program/plugin/whatever"?

--
Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
NOTICE: In-Newsgroup (and therefore off-topic) comments on my sig will
be cheerfully ignored, so don't waste our time.

 

[Scott]

It is much better at preventing crashes. I don't think anyone ever said it
was "crash proof".

I've never heard of a "crash-proof" OS.

--
Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
NOTICE: In-Newsgroup (and therefore off-topic) comments on my sig will
be cheerfully ignored, so don't waste our time.

 

[Adam Albright]

IIRC I have had Vista tell me what was wrong on a couple of occasions,
following the link they provided, it showed it was down to video drivers.

That's what the Event logs are for. Windows tries to explain why it
burped or worse. You can "see" by looking at the Event Viewer that can
be found under Administrative Tools in Control Panel. It uses the same
keys like Device Manager, Red for errors, yellow for warnings, plus
informational, plus a new category critical.

 

[Adam Albright]

Several television commercials in the states claiemd exactly that.

You must have a SPECIAL TV that picks up channels nobody else sees.

<giggle>

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Really?
I have not seen any such commercial stating vista is "crash proof".
I also have not seen any documentation anywhere that says as much,
other than your post that is.

My guess is you misunderstood something you saw on a commercial and
assumed from there.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


Snipped

Several television commercials in the states claiemd exactly that.

Snipped some more

 

[Clenna Lumina]

Really?
I have not seen any such commercial stating vista is "crash proof".
I also have not seen any documentation anywhere that says as much,
other than your post that is.

My guess is you misunderstood something you saw on a commercial and
assumed from there.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


Snipped

Ok, wording wise, not exactly, but there are several claims that is the
"most stable Windows" and such, which clearly imply that, if it's more
stable then XP, then it wont crash hardly at all. Nothing could be
furthur from the truth. Its all big-media spin and all you who replied
to my post know it. Who cares how exactly it's worded if their meaning
is clear and amounts to untruthfulness.

 

[Justin]

Ok, wording wise, not exactly, but there are several claims that is the
"most stable Windows" and such, which clearly imply that, if it's more

It is the most stable. What's your point?

stable then XP, then it wont crash hardly at all. Nothing could be

Who told you this garbage?

furthur from the truth. Its all big-media spin and all you who replied to
my post know it.

We know what? That our Vista installation work great? Yup!

Who cares how exactly it's worded if their meaning is clear and amounts to
untruthfulness.

??? Are you serious? Words have meanings! You have to use the right words.
What are you? 10?