Confused . . .

[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

 

[David J. Carmack]

Have you tried installing your troubled devices as legacy devices? If you
don't have a driver that is Vista ready then perhaps you should try this
method of installation.

Regards,


David J. Carmack
Network Support Engineer

 

[Bob Eyster]

As your subject states, what are you confused about????

 

[Steve Thackery]

As your subject states, what are you confused about????

That his experiences don't match up with "the word" in these newsgroups,
obviously! Did you really need that explaining?

SteveT

 

[Steve Thackery]

I'm not confused. People in these forums are either:

a/ people who have problems with Vista

b/ people who like fixing problems with Vista

So of course, all you read about here is problems with Vista!

As for myself, I very much prefer Vista to XP, and in recent months have had
no problems with it whatsoever.

SteveT

 

[Charlie Tame]

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

Hehe, well since I have a reputation for complaining about MS (Unjust I
may add for the reasons below) I'll join in.

I largely agree with your assessment, but as you point out APIs as
something developers could work with in advance I wonder how many of
these APIs suffered subtle changes that meant such things as driver
software written in compliance later failed to comply...

I think the rearrangement of items is more logical in some ways, but
flies in the face of user expectations, it is like the start button to
shut down joke, is may have been a mistake at first but the jokes are
all done now and that is what people expected... compatibility at least
in the less logical aspects

As for compatibility well, XP was truly amazing in what it would run on,
maybe slowly in some cases but it got there, it ran and eventually
finished what it was doing with few complaints. People see Vista as a
real step backwards - although there is more than one definition of
"Compatible" of course and you are correct that compatibility cannot go
on forever. It may be contradictory to sales but just as drugs carry a
warning that there may be side effects perhaps this should be carried
forward to operating systems... if you suffer from older software see
your technician before using this OS. I personally feel that
compatibility has to go to make way for security but ordinary "Users"
except otherwise, and I think even some system admins are shall we say
disappointed.

On the subject of security I think it is confused with UAC, idiot
proofing... that doesn not make the OS inherently more secure since
stupidity (Which we've all done, admit it) is no way the fault of an
OS... You can be just as stupid with Linux, Mac OS, Solaris, you name
it. Email someone your passwords (See the RIAA for this).

I thinks MS have shot themselves in the foot though with WGA / WPA since
if they are going to moan about theft they need to be extra clean
themselves and not accuse innocent people of theft. Fair enough, I'm
sure they don;t mean it that way, but people will take it that way, and
my reaction is to say "Okay, I'll make darned sure you don't have
grounds for that accusation, I will learn to use something else". That
doesn't mean I hate MS or will abandon every Windows system etc, I am
simply making the point that if that happens MS will not notice the
effects until too late - once folks switch they will be very loathe to
go back.

Just call it IMHO bad PR. WGA reminders are fine, taking action based on
somewhat tenuous evidence is not. Jeez, MS makes how many millions a
minute and sure, they could make more if nobody stole but every
corporation faces the same "Losses" and it generates little sympathy.

But thanks for a rational post, it is helpful to stick with facts but
not everything fits into that definition.

 

[Charlie Tame]

I'm not confused. People in these forums are either:

a/ people who have problems with Vista

b/ people who like fixing problems with Vista

So of course, all you read about here is problems with Vista!

As for myself, I very much prefer Vista to XP, and in recent months have
had no problems with it whatsoever.

SteveT

That is great but some do and it does no good to claim that because
"Your" system works the problems must be their fault or someone "Other
than Microsoft's" fault. Please don't think I am accusing you of doing
that, I'm not, just stating an opinion. Some of the common problems MS
have turned out patches for, thus establishing beyond doubt that there
were problems and getting them fixed, which is all anybody including
Microsoft can do.

 

[Michael Palumbo]

Have you tried installing your troubled devices as legacy devices? If you
don't have a driver that is Vista ready then perhaps you should try this
method of installation.

Regards,


David J. Carmack
Network Support Engineer

I personally have no real troubles with Vista, and I've managed to resolve
about 99% of the problems I've been called out to fix, so far.

Mic

 

[Michael Palumbo]

I'm not confused. People in these forums are either:

a/ people who have problems with Vista

b/ people who like fixing problems with Vista

So of course, all you read about here is problems with Vista!

As for myself, I very much prefer Vista to XP, and in recent months have
had no problems with it whatsoever.

SteveT

I'm not talking about just these groups, I'm talking about what I've run
into in general with resistance to Vista and the insistence by many that's
it's simply broken and doesn't work.

Not just here, but all over the net and people I've run into face to face as
well.

Mic

 

[Steve Thackery]

On the subject of security I think it is confused with UAC, idiot

proofing... that doesn not make the OS inherently more secure since
stupidity (Which we've all done, admit it) is no way the fault of an OS...
You can be just as stupid with Linux, Mac OS, Solaris, you name it.

I partially agree, but not entirely. UAC is simply the Vista equivalent of
the elevation prompt used in Linux and Mac OSX (without complaint from
either camp, I should add!).

It allows the user to run *without* administrator privileges and yet still
elevate to Administrator temporarily should the task require it.
Futhermore, an unexpected UAC prompt is a very clear security alert.

Running without administrator privileges is inherently more secure than the
default in XP, where the user runs as an administrator all the time.

So, I think UAC is a good thing. It's a lot more that "idiot proofing".

SteveT

 

[Charlie Tame]

I partially agree, but not entirely. UAC is simply the Vista equivalent
of the elevation prompt used in Linux and Mac OSX (without complaint
from either camp, I should add!).

It allows the user to run *without* administrator privileges and yet
still elevate to Administrator temporarily should the task require it.
Futhermore, an unexpected UAC prompt is a very clear security alert.

Running without administrator privileges is inherently more secure than
the default in XP, where the user runs as an administrator all the time.

So, I think UAC is a good thing. It's a lot more that "idiot proofing".

SteveT

In a properly managed environment any system could be useful, however a
lot of places are simply not managed properly and outside of corporate
domains that is the majority of Windows users...

 

[Bob Eyster]

I have to turn UAC off because it slows IE7 to a crawl. It slows anything
that accesses the internet for that matter.