Vista's 11 Pillars of Failure

Iria · Apr 24, 2008, 09:19 PM

While the public's attention seems to be swinging toward Windows 7 (the next iteration of the OS)—a topic I'll address in the weeks ahead—the fact of the matter is that Vista remains. And it seems that the OS now has two distinct groups of users. One group happily uses Vista, with few concerns or complaints. In fact, many of them are baffled by all the grumbling. The other group is the fist-shaking Vista bashers who condemn each and every flaw the OS exhibits.
__________
Source: PC Magazine

Zardon · Apr 24, 2008, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iria

In fact, many of them are baffled by all the grumbling.

I am not. People hate change.

Same thing has happened throughout history, from win 98 to Me, To 2000, to XP. It will never change.

Vikingod · Apr 24, 2008, 09:49 PM

I think people some just pay too much attention to those annoying "mac vs PC" ads.

mkk · Apr 24, 2008, 09:51 PM

Most points in this perticular article are good though, which is kind of a change from the norm. However when it comes to WinFS I'm glad they didn't push it out with Vista, as for what I can make out of it WinFS would have weighed down on system performance even further. There's enough metadata piggy-back'ing on the file system already for my taste.

Vikingod · Apr 24, 2008, 09:59 PM

I will agree with the marketing confusion remark, I still think that was their biggest mistake right off the ramp.

This remark however, leaves me baffled

Quote:

It seems incredible that all of the Windows drivers that worked with XP did not necessarily work with Vista. How does that happen?

Is he saying that all XP drivers should work with Vista? If thats the case, I want my first PC with the 500mb HDD to work with XP, pronto.

I've personally not had any trouble with driver support, even on my old laptop with an unsupported video card.

Either way, Vista x64 support is leaps and bounds ahead of its XP counterpart, which I think is a step forward.

Judas · Apr 24, 2008, 10:09 PM

alot of the points he makes are "semi" maybe's ifs.... hell you can't really put a "100% agree" sticker on most if not many of them.

People bitch that vista didn't have this, and then others bitch that it DID have this (or that)......

omfg about the quote that vikingod already posted..... this guy needs to read over his own work before posting.... and shit, that's coming from me that makes massive mistakes in my own posts...

Zardon · Apr 24, 2008, 11:29 PM

Its like, how many times are we going to go over this.......... kernel changes mean driver changes. I wish people doing these articles would at least do a little research beforehand if they aren't already aware of basic low level system operations.

OldBuzzard · Apr 25, 2008, 03:07 AM

Just another lame-ass "expert", that couldn't think of anything else to write about draggin out the tired old "The new OS sucks...the old one was better" garbage.

Yeah, the driver thing is definately bogus. I guess he also expected the drivers from Win 3.11 to work with Win 95.

Also the "Vista Capable" horse crap. All that meant was the the system could run Vista, not that it could run it with all the bells and whistles. That was no different that what you see on the side of the box on a game when it shows the minimum requirements to run it. Yeah, the minimum system will run it, but it's not going to look good, nor are you going to see much in the way of FPS.

Vista is a "memory hog"...well, if you are an ignorant ass that doesn't know how Vista works, and if Vista's SuperFetch is beyond your comprehension, then I guess it is. Right now I'm looking at the task manager, and it's saying that out of 8190MB of memory, I only have 5073MB free. Since I took the time to do a little research, I know that is not a bad thing, as that 'wasted memory usage' actually helps performance rather than hinder it.

I'm not saying that Vista is perfect, nor that I don't have an issue or two that I still need to sort out with it. But the longer I use it, and the more I learn about it, the better I like it. If this guy, and all of the others like him, would take their collective heads out of their asses for a bit, they might come to the same conclusion.

MitchRapp · Apr 25, 2008, 03:18 AM

what's the funniest about all this is that SMART users like yourselves think Vista is great but all the morons who post "LOL VISTA IZ FUR NUBSSLLOL LOL!!!!" don't like Vista

Hmm???

I personally find my Vista x64 Ultimate to be a BLAST.
I love just about everything about it, and since SP1 even more (faster file transfers anyone?)

Everything is pretty much as it should be.
Superfetch = Superwin !

swimtech · Apr 25, 2008, 03:57 AM

That's exactly the analogy I was thinking of...

Vista after XP feels much like the transition from WFWG 3.11 (I loved that OS, um, shell...) to Win95. Took a couple years to get right.

Mr. Dvorak, well, he's always been a hoot - makes a good living at it.

Businesses and education are having a hard time with Vista because of the four year lag built into their software and hardware infrastructure - it is very expensive to change both to run Vista well and without issue of ANY kind and that's what IT is hearing users want in those environments. Users there also remember the transition from 95/98 to XP (then SP1, SP2, while adding in web based apps that were glitchy because web based app standards didn't really exist, but have worked ok for the last year or two...) and don't want to go through that again - want it to remain stable awhile - yes, don't want to change, but that perspective is reasonable to a degree when thousands at a time are involved and really can't yet do (just a few...) things they need to the way they've been trained and/or are comfortable doing it.

Vista doesn't suck, it just really needs hardware and software less than 18 months old or so - seems to me John is exaggerating the frustration felt by folks with older stuff...

Every individual I've talked to using on their own at home on recent machines likes it fine - thinks it's the "coolest" Windows yet. I do too.

Customgamer1 · Apr 25, 2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimtech

That's exactly the analogy I was thinking of...

Vista after XP feels much like the transition from WFWG 3.11 (I loved that OS, um, shell...) to Win95. Took a couple years to get right.

Mr. Dvorak, well, he's always been a hoot - makes a good living at it.

Businesses and education are having a hard time with Vista because of the four year lag built into their software and hardware infrastructure - it is very expensive to change both to run Vista well and without issue of ANY kind and that's what IT is hearing users want in those environments. Users there also remember the transition from 95/98 to XP (then SP1, SP2, while adding in web based apps that were glitchy because web based app standards didn't really exist, but have worked ok for the last year or two...) and don't want to go through that again - want it to remain stable awhile - yes, don't want to change, but that perspective is reasonable to a degree when thousands at a time are involved and really can't yet do (just a few...) things they need to the way they've been trained and/or are comfortable doing it.

Vista doesn't suck, it just really needs hardware and software less than 18 months old or so - seems to me John is exaggerating the frustration felt by folks with older stuff...

Every individual I've talked to using on their own at home on recent machines likes it fine - thinks it's the "coolest" Windows yet. I do too.

My question is where did Microsoft go wrong? Was it the huge lack of advertising?

All people know about Vista is what Mac tells you about it. It sucks because they said it does.

Mac is VERY smart because Microsoft does not push as hard as they do. Mac does not have as big of a market share and need to do it more, but a few PC commercials from MS would not be a bad thing

I have used and will be getting Vista in the next few months and I have nothing to complain about yet. I think its kind of cool!

**dj_stick** · Apr 25, 2008, 01:14 PM

the guy's an idiot

with the exception of some of the marketing points, he's got no clue - as for performance - of course it's going to use more resources, and have a larger codebase than a 7 year old OS - that's just common sense

Apr 24, 2008, 09:19 PM	#1
Iria DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 7,275 Rep Power: 89	Vista's 11 Pillars of Failure While the public's attention seems to be swinging toward Windows 7 (the next iteration of the OS)—a topic I'll address in the weeks ahead—the fact of the matter is that Vista remains. And it seems that the OS now has two distinct groups of users. One group happily uses Vista, with few concerns or complaints. In fact, many of them are baffled by all the grumbling. The other group is the fist-shaking Vista bashers who condemn each and every flaw the OS exhibits. __________ Source: PC Magazine

Apr 25, 2008, 03:07 AM	#8
OldBuzzard DH's oldest Geek Join Date: May 2003 Location: Oberlin, OH Posts: 2,783 Rep Power: 145 System Specs	Just another lame-ass "expert", that couldn't think of anything else to write about draggin out the tired old "The new OS sucks...the old one was better" garbage. Yeah, the driver thing is definately bogus. I guess he also expected the drivers from Win 3.11 to work with Win 95. Also the "Vista Capable" horse crap. All that meant was the the system could run Vista, not that it could run it with all the bells and whistles. That was no different that what you see on the side of the box on a game when it shows the minimum requirements to run it. Yeah, the minimum system will run it, but it's not going to look good, nor are you going to see much in the way of FPS. Vista is a "memory hog"...well, if you are an ignorant ass that doesn't know how Vista works, and if Vista's SuperFetch is beyond your comprehension, then I guess it is. Right now I'm looking at the task manager, and it's saying that out of 8190MB of memory, I only have 5073MB free. Since I took the time to do a little research, I know that is not a bad thing, as that 'wasted memory usage' actually helps performance rather than hinder it. I'm not saying that Vista is perfect, nor that I don't have an issue or two that I still need to sort out with it. But the longer I use it, and the more I learn about it, the better I like it. If this guy, and all of the others like him, would take their collective heads out of their asses for a bit, they might come to the same conclusion. __________________ When looking for a reason as to why things go wrong, never rule out sheer STUPIDITY

Apr 25, 2008, 03:57 AM	#10
swimtech HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 4,040 Rep Power: 124 System Specs	That's exactly the analogy I was thinking of... Vista after XP feels much like the transition from WFWG 3.11 (I loved that OS, um, shell...) to Win95. Took a couple years to get right. Mr. Dvorak, well, he's always been a hoot - makes a good living at it. Businesses and education are having a hard time with Vista because of the four year lag built into their software and hardware infrastructure - it is very expensive to change both to run Vista well and without issue of ANY kind and that's what IT is hearing users want in those environments. Users there also remember the transition from 95/98 to XP (then SP1, SP2, while adding in web based apps that were glitchy because web based app standards didn't really exist, but have worked ok for the last year or two...) and don't want to go through that again - want it to remain stable awhile - yes, don't want to change, but that perspective is reasonable to a degree when thousands at a time are involved and really can't yet do (just a few...) things they need to the way they've been trained and/or are comfortable doing it. Vista doesn't suck, it just really needs hardware and software less than 18 months old or so - seems to me John is exaggerating the frustration felt by folks with older stuff... Every individual I've talked to using on their own at home on recent machines likes it fine - thinks it's the "coolest" Windows yet. I do too. __________________ It's not so much getting your way that matters or not - what matters is how you go about getting it.

Apr 24, 2008, 09:49 PM	#3
Vikingod Int'l Fish Liaison Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: By the light of lamp I sit and type... Posts: 16,197 Rep Power: 112 System Specs	I think people some just pay too much attention to those annoying "mac vs PC" ads.

Apr 24, 2008, 09:51 PM	#4
mkk Cthulhu/Dagon 2012 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Gefle, Sweden Posts: 4,492 Rep Power: 132 System Specs	Most points in this perticular article are good though, which is kind of a change from the norm. However when it comes to WinFS I'm glad they didn't push it out with Vista, as for what I can make out of it WinFS would have weighed down on system performance even further. There's enough metadata piggy-back'ing on the file system already for my taste.

Apr 24, 2008, 11:29 PM	#7
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 179	Its like, how many times are we going to go over this.......... kernel changes mean driver changes. I wish people doing these articles would at least do a little research beforehand if they aren't already aware of basic low level system operations.

Apr 25, 2008, 03:18 AM	#9
MitchRapp a.k.a. pepiman Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Montreal Posts: 998 Rep Power: 51 System Specs	what's the funniest about all this is that SMART users like yourselves think Vista is great but all the morons who post "LOL VISTA IZ FUR NUBSSLLOL LOL!!!!" don't like Vista Hmm??? I personally find my Vista x64 Ultimate to be a BLAST. I love just about everything about it, and since SP1 even more (faster file transfers anyone?) Everything is pretty much as it should be. Superfetch = Superwin !