The main problem with Windows Vista

The New York Times published an article on Friday about Windows Vista that included this: "The main problem with Vista, Microsoft said, was that given the delays, uncertainty and significant changes in the software, the rest of the industry was not ready when Vista finally arrived."

This is, of course, self-serving; companies rarely admit their mistakes. How convenient that the fault lies with the "rest of the industry."

In fact, Microsoft released Vista prematurely. One can only assume that there was pent-up pressure stemming from the delay in getting it out the door. But few Windows users care about the delay. What made an impression, to the non-techies of the world, were the initial problems people had using it.

In the quote above Microsoft was referring to the lack of hardware drivers. They have to shoulder some of the blame for this, both in terms of not working sufficiently with hardware vendors and for releasing Vista knowing full well that driver problems awaited early adopters. Then too, they signed off on calling under-powered computers "Vista capable".

On top of this, Vista wasn't fully baked when it was released. The huge number of articles that suggested waiting for the first service pack is a testament to that.

In fairness, the same can be said of Apple. Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5) too, was far from fully baked when it was released. In this regard at least, Linux shines. There is no marketing department or sales department at Linux headquarters pushing the operating system out the door before the programmers say it's ready. In fact, there are no Linux headquarters at all.

Hassle factor

The Times article goes on to say: "By now, Microsoft insists that most of the frustrating technical problems with Vista...have been resolved--and many industry executives and analysts agree." Assuming, for argument's sake, that's true, the out-of-the-gate problems aren't the end of the story.

Vista has to be better than Windows XP. And the judgment of whether it's better or not varies with the audience. While techies may write blogs and articles, nerds are the minority--most Windows users are normal people with lives focused elsewhere. And for many normal people, Vista just ain't worth it.

For example, I can drive a car with an automatic transmission, but not a stick shift. Assuming, for argument's sake, that stick shifts offered an advantage (perhaps better mileage), I have to weigh the advantage against the cost and hassle of making the switch.

For many computer users, Windows XP works just fine. It's familiar, it's what they know, it's not a problem waiting to be solved. Some can barely use Windows XP and may not have the ability to adapt to anything new. Technical change is fun and easy for techies, but the same change is hard and/or distracting for others. I deal with many non-techies with jobs in other fields who could care less about operating systems. Their computer is a tool to get their work done and any change is a nuisance--perhaps one they don't have time for.

The keyboard on your computer uses a layout that was chosen for reasons that no longer apply. Yet, who knows how many better layouts have failed to take off because they couldn't overcome the hassle involved in changing. Once someone learns to type on an existing keyboard, the benefit has to be huge to switch to a new layout.

Against this background, Vista has to be better than Windows XP. Much better. Noticeably better.

I don't see it.

I don't see Vista offering sufficient benefit in the way of must-have features to make it worth the changeover hassle. On top of this, despite whatever strides Microsoft may cite, Windows XP will be more compatible with existing hardware and software for the immediate future. Thus, XP is still the right decision for many Windows users.

Businesses choose which version of Windows to use and most chose XP (see Intel and General Motors). Consumers, by and large, don't choose, they are force-fed Vista. That's a shame. In part, it has led to the resurgent interest in Macs (along with the commercials, of course) and may well lead to the rise of Linux on Netbook computers. We'll see.

Update September 7, 2008: I'm not a Mac person, so my analogy about Apple also releasing an OS before it was ready may have been off. A commenter below said: "You would be more correct in using OS X 10.0 as a parallel example, which was released way too quickly, and was full of bugs. OS X 10.1 (which had all the fixes) came out very quickly after that, and was distributed to all OS X users for free as a partial apology."

See a summary of all my Defensive Computing postings.

[mrglsmrc]

I don't see windows vista as a causal agent for the switch to mac at all. While large enterprises with IT departments might want the conformity of running all winXPpro machines, there is a lot right about Vista. And private consumers are better off with vista rather than XP because they don't have their own IT departments. When MS stops supporting XP next year and only supports vista machines with security fixes these end-users will know how lucky they are to have a machine that will continue working safely and get hardware drivers for new components that just won't be available on some newer machines with the older operating system.
And if you don't think linux has a marketing department then why do you think companies like SUSE and redhat are still around. there have been many situations with linux where hardware drivers were not available for current technology. Ask any linux user if he had an SATA drive when these were first produced and you will have an answer as to why Microsoft survives as a business model.

[Gomphos]

Actually, Microsoft will offer support for Windows XP until 2014.

[mhinnewyork]

I disagree. A consumer,or small business, without their own IT department is better off with Windows XP because it is more likely to be compatible with existing hardware and software. The number of applications that work on Vista but not on XP will be very small for a long long time. And considering the huge amount of Windows XP users, the number of hardware devices that work on Vista but not on XP is also going to be infinitesimal for a long time.
Yes, Linux has "issues" with hardware device drivers, certainly more than Windows, but my point was simply that the OS kernel is never released before the developers think it's ready. Every OS has its pros and cons.
Michael Horowitz

[Penguinisto]

eh? SATA drives in Linux show up as /dev/sd-(a,b,c,d...) Never had a problem with them. OSX never had a problem with them. Now if you would have said Wireless when it first came out, then okay... but you're still confusing early (and somewhat still present) reluctance from hardware manufacturers, with competence in writing code. Not easy to write a driver when the device maker refuses to publish the specs... try it sometime.

SuSE and RedHat don't advertise in television or most traditional media - they get known mostly by word-of-mouth and through trade paper (and trade website) ads.

[mister gaijin]

another problem with vista: CDs and DVDs (photos) burned on a vista box are unreadable on a MacIntosh, i.e. they will not mount! some are (partially) recoverable with a file salvage app, but original file names are lost. I am the Mac user (thank God) and I am speaking of CDs/DVDs burned by three separate (unfortunate) vista users. It matters to me because I can't see their photos and it matters to them because it has finally destroyed their (misplaced) faith in Microsoft. It is also embarrassing for them. Emailing thousands of large jpg files is not an option. CDs and DVDs burned on XP (or earlier) are all fine.

MacIntoshes have always been able to open PC disks (until Vista) but never the other way around. This PC chauvinism is curious and stupid.

I live in the Seattle area and know, through multiple sources, that Microsoft never beta tests anything, but rather inflicts that on the public. Each new OS is huger and slower. I also know that their corporate culture rewards mismanagement, incompetence, ignorance and back-stabbing mendacity. I like Bill, and don't want to believe he would approve of what his company has become, but I could be wrong. Anyway, his charities absolve him of sin in my book. Still, a thorough house cleaning would make Microsoft better and more profitable. They could easily fire most middle management. Their customers should be happy, not beset by a never ending assault of viruses, spyware, patches and things that crash.

[Imalittleteapot]

All that was already said on the net a year and a half ago. Tell us something new. These people at the NYT get paid for this crap? I thought they wrote news articles, not history books.

Besides, the issues with Vista have been fixed except for on machines that shouldn't have Vista on them to begin with. The only reason people aren't asking for it is they don't need it. They never needed it. Vista only existed to make money for Microsoft. It was never created to fulfill an actual need of the consumers. Even if that weren't true some of us are just waiting to see Windows 7 now so it doesn't even matter.

How does a business prepare for a product before release anyway? Hardware drivers were a problem. This is why companies need to look into their own standard for how a kernel talks to the drivers instead of having to rewrite drivers every time MS decides it wants to change the Windows driver model. They at least need to try anyway.

If such a thing existed then the drivers would have already been written and tested long before Vista was made. There's got to be a way to create such a common interface. We can put a man on the moon, but I need a different driver for every operating system I use? Even for different versions of the same OS? Come on. Yeah, that's good for Microsoft, but not for the hardware makers. However, here we see it's not even good for Microsoft anymore. In fact it's exactly what made Vista's release so bad. Obviously it is time to look for a better solution for hardware drivers.

Perhaps people weren't ready for Vista. I'll bet you ten dollars that if they had made a different product, something people were ready for, it would have went over much smoother. Trying to sell something that people "aren't ready for" is probably not the business model I would personally choose. I suppose MS can ask themselves how that's working for them and if they'd like to continue with that strategy in the future though.

[The1egend]

The fact that you can say, 'All that was already said on the net a year and a half ago. Tell us something new.' coupled with the recent article by NYT, means that this issue is not yet resolved. The market has still not fully embraced Vista. Why is this all relevant now? The $300 million campaign by microsoft to persuade people to switch for one.

IMO your points are correct. Microsoft came out with Vista because it needed to come out with a new product. It needed to sell something. It could be argued that the industry needed Vista as well to sell new, more powerful machines. Something to necessitate the advancement of the low end. The high end is never really pushed by the OS, games and programs like Photoshop and CAD will do that.

You can see the effect of this still in Microsoft allowing XP to be sold on netbooks. How much power do people need to surf the net, e-mail, and type? Not a whole lot. So why have a humongous, resource hungry OS for only those minimal tasks?

[Imalittleteapot]

The1egend: I have no idea how many resources people really need. I learned to program with less than a meg of ram, but if I had to do that today I'd blow my brains out.

I don't want computers to stop progressing. I won't complain if something legitimately uses more resources. I don't want to stop at 4 gigs of ram. That would limit us too much. However, when you compare Vista with Linux or OS X you have to wonder where all your resources went, and that's from someone that likes Vista post SP1.

Nobody can tell you one thing Vista does that XP couldn't, but yet it uses four to eight times as much power? Even today nobody can tell you exactly why. People have guessed at the DRM or bad drivers or Aero or indexing or Superfetch, but so far no one really knows what it's doing. That's sort of creepy isn't it?

[karhawk]

I used XP for several years but I have moved on to Vista Home premium because it was installed on a laptop I recently bought. With my configuration and hardware Vista works great, absolutely 0 problems so far, although I did have to upgrade my Nero software. It boots up faster shuts down quicker and over all I like it better then XP, I wouldn't go back and guess what? If you buy a new computer, unless its one of those net books you will get to know and like Vista too.

[mhinnewyork]

There are many ways to buy a new computer with Windows XP. For one, smaller hardware vendors can still sell XP. Larger hardware vendors offer XP if you first buy a business version of Vista. Fujitsu is particularly good at this. You may also still be able to buy XP at retail in a shrink-wrapped box. Not long ago, Windows XP was a top seller at Amazon. And, then there are used computers too. And, of course, Netbooks. Then too, businesses with site licenses are under different rules that also allow them to keep installing XP. Michael Horowitz

[disposablefiend]

I think that the main reason that non techie people do not like vista is because of the bad things they have heard and because they listen to the mac commercials instead of actually getting hands on experience.
I know that Vista is not the best operating system out there but then again, what is the most used desktop and corporate client environment in use by more than 90 percent of computer users? Windows is.
I have been using vista since it was available to the consumer, and have learned the many problems of having minimal hardware running Vista. If you want a decent experience, you MUST have more than 1 gig of ram and your computer MUST be less than a year old since Vista barely came out. You can't expect to upgrade a computer with Vista and expect it to be a blaze. Microsoft has part of the blame for this because they were thinking about not losing money when they set the bar too low when it came to upgrades and what will work to run the entire "Experience" of Vista.

[mhinnewyork]

There have been interesting stories about dissension within Microsoft over that decision. At least some in the company knew that labeling under-powered machines as Vista capable was a mistake. Michael Horowitz

[Imalittleteapot]

disposablefiend: "I know that Vista is not the best operating system out there but then again, what is the most used desktop and corporate client environment in use by more than 90 percent of computer users?"

Yes, Windows is the most used operating system. Windows XP in fact is the most used operating system on the desktop. What does that have to do with Vista? Are you making the argument that we should use what everyone else is using? If you are then wouldn't you actually be making the case to stay on Windows XP? Also, if we should always use the OS that everyone else is using how would we ever manage to upgrade? Someone has to eventually be the oddball and upgrade first.

I've think that's the worst pro Vista argument I have seen in a while.

[Penguinisto]

There's other factors missing here: the actual problems Vista has had, coupled with compatibility problems and a radical shift in GUI.

[marcus-br]

We consumers sometimes have not enough options . I went to buy a XP (full package) but they don't sell anymore . I went to buy a new notebook and 95% of them now are with displays like glass , that reflects light ( i hate the reflections ) , and with more than 100 Gb of hard drive (my old PC has only 20 Gb and is still 60% empty) . My internet provider offers only a 1 Gb package , my cable TV provider also don't let me choose the channels I want . In the country I live the TV system is still 3x4 but all LCD TVs are wide screens , meaning that you pay extra to get a distortion of the picture .

[mhinnewyork]

Amazon is still selling Windows XP in a shrink-wrapped box. I completely agree about the glare on screens shown to consumers, I too would rather have a screen with an anti-glare coating. I'm told that adding the anti-glare coating costs money, glassy screens are cheaper. Michael Horowitz

[waffletower]

I can't believe how asinine this comparison that Horowitz made is:

"In fairness, the same can be said of Apple. Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5) too, was far from fully baked when it was released."

The issues with Leopard were a kin to stubbing your toe - they hurt for a moment and the pain went away quickly. The issues with Vista are much more akin to falling off the bleachers and feeling the pain for more than a year. "In all fairness"? There is nothing fair about your comparison whatsoever. The scale of misery that Vista users suffer is far beyond anything Leopard ever caused. Horowitz's comparison is purely partisan and dilutes the relevance, scope, and intelligence of his writing.

[mhinnewyork]

Leopard shipped with the firewall turned off. Regardless of your opinion on how buggy it was when initially released, that was inexcusable. Michael Horowitz

[George Gray]

The Apple spin hits again. Although not widely reported, I do recall seeing several stories where the Macheads were complaining about BLUE SCREENS, frequent crashes, apps not working, etc. I had a good chuckle for a moment.
Vista's biggest problem-other than CNET's biased 'reporting'-WAS, in fact, the drivers. Personally, I did not encounter any of the issues it supposedly had. People tend to make blanket facts out their own personal observation, so...I am making the argument that Vista had no problems since I did not encounter them. Makes about as much sense as 'the issues with Leopard were a kin to stubbing your toe'. Same can definitely be said for Vista. Unless your name is Chris...then you switch platforms because your ten year printer won't work.

[eee444]

We should say thank you, Bil Gates and all the real business people like you, because if there weren't people like you, we would using 8bit computers yet. Thank you for this amazing machines we now use, and thank you for pushing the hardware keep growing. <a href="http://www.kmkpro.com/>Design and usability are the main benefits of all the Windows versions against all the others, and it should be forgiven that each new version of Windows has its problems. Mac is cool too anyway, but I just didn't use it so I can't speak for it.

[jezmondo]

You're kidding right? The monopoly of Windows has done more to hold back innovation than anything else in the industry. Now, sure it has also let of widespread compatibility - but innovation?

If you want to thank someone for the system you're using today you can thank Compaq, they produced the first clone (by reverse engineering the BIOS). You want to thank someone for HOW your PC works? Thank Apple, if it wasn't for the Lisa/Macintosh Windows would not have happened (or at least not so quickly).

What Microsoft have done is be behind the industry, like a race car in the slipstream - not innovating, be implementing (or more often buying) products the are starting to become popular. They haven't always played by the rules (next time you see Microsoft talking about software patents or piracy look at the Wikipedia page for Stac Electronics - yeah, exactly).

Let's give the devil his due, Microsoft Windows has been many users introduction to personal computing and has defined what most people have thought of when they think about a PC. But make no mistake, the real innovations happened elsewhere.

[szekelyrobi]

"I can drive a car with an automatic transmission, but not a stick shift."
Well, you can only drive a dodgem not a car...

I use both mac and windows daily as a graphic artist... OS X is really a very professional designed and supported Linux distro, the "hype" factor mainly based on superior build quality and components, but isn't it easier to create a driver for 2-4 specific video cards than to write one which should works for all? I never understood the buzz about mac vs. windows, in my daily process it does not make any difference that Photoshop or Vista runs on OSX or Vista. But I do think we -who wasting time on the issue at all LOL, are all marketing and fashion victims. Marketing, yess Apple makes better looks, packaging adds etc has a character or a certain appeal while Vista like all other products which tries to fit all tastes are over designed while somewhat cheep looking, plus a lot of people are very tired of the "evilness" of MS, but I can make you sure that Apple ain't any better! They have more fans because if you dumped MS FOREVER once than not much other option had left... and also apple attracts fashion and design conscious folks and people with a low self esteem ( they need the factor that even my computer is better/more expensive than yours...) one fellow designer stated that he can see on a Photoshop job that it was made on a mac or windows... which made me laugh for days, the only truth in it more people with Windows making craps in Photoshop without really knowing what they doing... But this is all not about function at all!
(Personally I buy a macs, looks better! LOL)

[jaspal.m]

Before the realease people were saying microsoft is slow,and just trying to copy others.
After the realease people is saying,they didnt need vista.
Actually any OS after XP,would all be more or less the same as XP.
And whatever would be there in Vista or upcoming Windows 7,there would be a free installation for XP as well to make it feel as if you are using those.
As for programmers,or big it companies,they would switch to new OS according to users around the world.They cant go advance or behind the users.

[magicmaster]

The main problem with Windows Vista is that Microsoft is forcifully shoving it up consumer's faces when they don't want it. And stop bugging with your pathetic silverlight technology. I won't install it. Shame on you.

[mhinnewyork]

It will be very interesting to see in the future if Microsoft's throwing XP overboard will lead people to Vista or Macs or Linux. Then again, I think Netbooks are the next big thing, and they do support XP, a smart move by Microsoft. Michael Horowitz

[Penguinisto]

@Michael: I don't think Microsoft had much choice there - netbooks don't usually have the horsepower required for Vista.

[craig.knapp1]

I have been using computers since the Commodore 64 days, I am a self taught enthusiast capable of programming in MS Access, fully fluent in Adobe PhotoShop CS3, and can create and edit video presentations using a variety of software. Why do many people like me disappointed in "Windoze Vistless"? The main reason is that after your Mother spends X-amount of dollars on a system, she takes it home and finds that it is useless until you load about one thousand dollars worth of software on it. Here are some other reasons we are disappointed with "Windoze Vistless":

1. My smokin' quad-core, 4GB RAM, 500GB video belchin system is just as stupid as my IBM Selectric typewriter was in the 1970s. If I browse to C: data ninety percent of the time when I open a file browser, why does the operating system not ask the user if this should be the default directory when opening the browser? Where is the Artificial Intelligence we all feared in the 1980s? I say bring it on.

2. Why Does "Windoze Vistless" fail to offer a dual pane file viewer like PC Tools v7.0 for DOS did nearly 10-12 years ago, or 2xExplorer offers today? In a world where External USB Drives, memory card readers for digital camera cards, etc., it seems that most people spend a significant amount of time moving data from one drive or diretory to another, opening two instances of MS My Computer to see two drives side by side is very inefficient.

3. Seems that the OS should help the user manage data, which is of course the most important and irreplacable part of the computer, all the man hours invested in scanning family photos, creating MS Access files, updating spreadsheets, represents a significant investment in an irreplaceable commodity, YOUR TIME. Why does "Windows Vistless" fail to assist the user by offering incremental back-up softwware to help a user keep a primary and back-drive in sync.

4. Take MS Office 2007, why is the Print Icon hidden by default?

It seems that "Windoze Vistless" after nearly 20 years of home PC Computing is not making the user experience any more enjoyable or productive. Sure I can play Crysis on my system like crazy, but what about productivity in the aforementioned areas?

Craig Knapp

[craig.knapp1]

I have been using computers since the Commodore 64 days, I am a self taught enthusiast capable of programming in MS Access, fully fluent in Adobe PhotoShop CS3, and can create and edit video presentations using a variety of software. Why do many people like me disappointed in "Windoze Vistless"? The main reason is that after your Mother spends X-amount of dollars on a system, she takes it home and finds that it is useless until you load about one thousand dollars worth of software on it. Here are some other reasons we are disappointed with "Windoze Vistless":

1. My smokin' quad-core, 4GB RAM, 500GB video belchin system is just as stupid as my IBM Selectric typewriter was in the 1970s. If I browse to C: data ninety percent of the time when I open a file browser, why does the operating system not ask the user if this should be the default directory when opening the browser? Where is the Artificial Intelligence we all feared in the 1980s? I say bring it on.

2. Why Does "Windoze Vistless" fail to offer a dual pane file viewer like PC Tools v7.0 for DOS did nearly 10-12 years ago, or 2xExplorer offers today? In a world where External USB Drives, memory card readers for digital camera cards, etc., it seems that most people spend a significant amount of time moving data from one drive or diretory to another, opening two instances of MS My Computer to see two drives side by side is very inefficient.

3. Seems that the OS should help the user manage data, which is of course the most important and irreplacable part of the computer, all the man hours invested in scanning family photos, creating MS Access files, updating spreadsheets, represents a significant investment in an irreplaceable commodity, YOUR TIME. Why does "Windows Vistless" fail to assist the user by offering incremental back-up softwware to help a user keep a primary and back-drive in sync.

4. Take MS Office 2007, why is the Print Icon hidden by default?

It seems that "Windoze Vistless" after nearly 20 years of home PC Computing is not making the user experience any more enjoyable or productive. Sure I can play Crysis on my system like crazy, but what about productivity in the aforementioned areas?

Craig Knapp

[Lerianis]

Okay, I will debunk your points in reverse:

4. The reason why the print icon is hidden by default is that a lot of people on the older version of Microsoft Office, myself included, were hitting it by accident and printing things that they didn't want to print.

3. The reason that the OS doesn't help the user manage data (which was planned for WinFS) is that it takes WAY too much power away from other things, slowing the computer down by half or more. That is the reason why Windows Vista didn't include that functionality.
It was planned... but they found out it wasn't 'fully-baked' yet.

2. A dual pane viewer? Give me a break. Only a severe techie would need one of them and it doesn't take very long to open two Windows for both devices or Directories. Hell, with the 'folder pane' on the left side of the window in Vista, you already HAVE that functionality, in all honesty.

1. There is a reason why it doesn't remember stuff like that: you might not want to go directly to C drive at a point in the future, and it would get on your gourd then if Microsoft had it do that. Better to have shortcuts for Documents, Music, Pictures, Games, My Computer, etc. as Vista does on the start menu. Basically, with those shortcuts..... what you are asking for is NOT necessary.

[Penguinisto]

@Lerianis:

#4 is sheer idiocy in an office environment. You gotta print sometime.

#3 Vista sucks down too many resources in the first place. A file system shouldn't have to (for example ext3 does full journaling, yet it requires no real resources to do it, and maybe 1 sec. of boot time unless you had a power failure.

#2 is all personal preference. The option, if it was there before, should really still be there.

#1is trivial to code. Where's the harm in doing it? (OSX usually opens Finder --and Linux Nautilus-- in the user's home directory, where the user normally keeps all of his/her stuff).

[compjobs]

An OS is just a base platform which is supposed to make it easier to load applications. Vista is just the opposite. If even the base configuration requires 2GB and a powerful processor to get a decent speed (4GB to run as fast as XP), why would I want it. XP is popular and will still be popular because its lightweight and relatively stable.

Why should I pay Microsoft for a bloated OS that requires me to spend twice as much for the hardware to get the same speed as XP? Microsoft does not say how many people bought the retail versions of XP. Since Microsoft is a monopoly, they will get away with ****** software by forcing people to buy computers loaded with Vista.

[Lerianis]

Wrong. You just exposed yourself as a person who is totally stupid. The same hardware, same software, etc.... Vista loses absolutely no speed. Period, done with, over. You either haven't used Vista (as I have used it) or are just spouting the BS you have heard in the Mac ads.

The fact is that Vista and XP on the same hardware (as long as that hardware is medium or medium-fast hardware).... they get the same exact speeds.

[mhinnewyork]

Microsoft can not force you to buy Vista. There are Macs, Linux and many ways to still get XP. Michael Horowitz

[Penguinisto]

@Michael: Sort of... Dell, HP, and the big OEMs that folks have brand loyalty to will still make it hard for the non-tech consumer user to get anything but Windows Vista. Even if you wipe the HDD and park XP or Linux on it when you get it home, you're still stuck with paying for Vista in the first place in these cases. Seems very wasteful.

OTOH, you are right in that there are choices - which probably explains Apple's explosive sales figures :)

[Chez54]

I have to agree with waffletower, except... I had no issues at all with Leopard except that it did not contain a driver for a CanonLBP3000, but that's because Canon Japan just didn't feel it was important enough to develop a driver for the THOUSANDS of people who had bought their printer. Other than that, Leopard has worked like a dream, unlike Windows Vista, which I was forced to purchase in order to use Parallels Desktop (which allows me to use my Windows files on my MacBook Pro). Windows Vista is NOT an improvement over XP; it is a bad joke and a waste of time. It is CONSTANTLY reminding me about "essential" updates, it takes FOREVER to load, and it is just plain unattractive. Leopard/Apple win hands down all the way around. I will NEVER return to Windows!

[Lerianis]

Forever to load? Again, ********. I have two computers with Vista on them, and it takes them 30 seconds to load (though they are not loaded fully, I can still log-in and start working).
That's basically the same speed as a Mac I was looking at, which I had the guy at the store SHUT DOWN and boot back up so I could time it to see how fast it was.

Get off the 'Mac is faster!' BS. I am truly getting tired of hearing that junk from people who know NOTHING about what they are talking about.

[edwardr74]

I just build a computer for a friend. He only used XP and never heard of Vista. Suffice it to say he is not a techie. Well after using the PC for a month he could not be more thrilled. And yes it is running Vista. For all those people and businesses that still have either a 386 or 486 computer running Vista and hating it, let me tell you one word: UPGRADE!

[Lerianis]

Yeah, I have to agree. I was using an XP MCE computer, and my father got on my case for upgrading it to Vista. After a few months of using it, he was pretty much thrilled with it. Ran almost all programs faster, ran games MUCH faster (something I still don't understand), was faster at internet browsing.... just almost everything was better with Vista. Why? I don't know, but I am liking that it is.

The biggest problem I saw was lack of drivers at first (the reason why I delayed updating). But I found out that most of the drivers for my stuff had been there since day 1, even in the Vista pre-releases for testing.

[Penguinisto]

Some small points of order:

* "In fact, there are no Linux headquarters at all."
There is one, sort of. The Linux Foundation (which hires Linus Torvalds, who in turn calls all the shots on the kernel) is based in Beaverton, Oregon. OTOH, you are correct in that individual distro makers are the ones who decide when they release new versions of it and various things that use it. This can range from 'relatively quickly' (Fedora) to 'sometime in this geologic era' (Debian).

* Re: Leopard. You would be more correct in using OSX 10.0 as a parallel example, which was released way too quickly, and was full of bugs. OSX 10.1 (which had all the fixes) came out very quickly after that, and was distributed to all OSX users for free as a partial apology. Leopard itself (like Tiger before it) had only minor bugs, especially when compared to Vista.

* You are perfectly correct in that Vista is a paradigm shift, but without any compelling features to sell it.

* Enterprises (disclosure - I worked for Intel; my last day was this past Friday) have to deal with Vista as well, and most don't like what it will take to shift to it. The shift from 98 -> Win2k (or 98 -> XP for some) took time for many corps, but it had compelling reasons to justify the work, and didn't require a massive productivity-sucking re-adjustment. They also didn't require buying massive hardware upgrades, which is important when you're discussing capital budgets. Sure, the fanboys in here will whine about how one can get a Core Duo for cheaper and etc. (esp. in Intel's case - they make the CPUs, right? well, it doesn't work like that, folks). Businesses don't work that way. They have vendors and support contracts to factor in - and they don't have the luxury of cobbling together units off of pricewatch.com, or of buying cheap discount-of-the-day machines. They need boxes that will run rock-solid and have a decent ROI... and that costs money. Lots of money.

/P

[mhinnewyork]

Excellent points, thanks. Michael Horowitz

[Mr. Dee]

I have been a staunch supporter of Vista since the early betas. But recently I am beginning to change my tone, why? I just don't see the value anymore, the core differentiators, the things that made Vista special compared Windows XP are available for Windows XP. Yes, Vista is indeed more secure than XP, (then again I see the same viruses that attack XP succeed on Vista, (one malicious trojan/virus is one that disables all administrative priviledges in the OS, Run Command, Task Manager, Command Prompt, MSCONFIG) and this is on the 64 bit version of Vista. I thought things like ASRL and Patch Guard would have still given me something to praise about Vista in public. As for the surface features, the things that consumers see and use everyday: Windows Live Photo Gallery, Windows Live Mail (which is actually better than the built in Windows Mail in Vista), Windows Defender, Windows Movie Maker 6 are all available for XP. So what is the selling point here? It can't certainly be Aero! Microsoft, I have lost all faith in this OS and with more of the Windows Live Services becoming separate from the OS in even Windows 7, I don't see the point anymore. Better Boot time is just no enough.

[Lerianis]

Mr. Dee, you cannot blame Microsoft for the actions of viruses. There is absolutely nothing they can do to prevent all virus attacks..... unless they allow no applications to run on the OS. That is something that you should not blame Microsoft for. The real blame falls on the asshats who keep on making viruses like that, who, in all honesty, I would like to lop their damn hands off and stick them in a dirty place on their bodies.
As to Windows Live stuff being better than the built-in stuff in Vista..... yeah, it is. But then again, those came out nearly 8 months AFTER Vista did, so of COURSE they were going to be better than Vista's built-in stuff..... there was just no question that was going to be the case.
What are the selling points for Vista? UAC, improved security, protected mode in IE 7 and 8, easier connection to networks, higher network speed vs. XP (they REALLY improved this, I have to hand it to them), the ability to run most applications in standard user mode instead of administrative user mode with no problems, and a few other, smaller things.
More than enough to allow me to say "Microsoft.... YOU ARE AWESOME!" though I still have a problem with the high prices for their OS's.

[betelgeuse68]

Vista is fine now.

We've read about many of these issues and if you're buying a new machine, the vast majority of uninformed people (about 99.99%) when it comes to security are better off with Vista since it does not have you running with administrative privileges out of the box. I have found that even "tech people" don't fully understand (far from it in fact) the consequence of how Windows XP has you running by default (hint: this is why malware is such a problem)

Vista with its privilege escalation for installing applications and managing your system is what Windows XP should have been with SP2. You're much less likely to catch malware with Vista than XP as far as how each comes out of the box. I've heard people complaining about the password prompting in Vista but that's just being uninformed. (Aside: Trust me, it's good for you)

Vista does have one glaring issue. The rearchitecting of the display driver model has resulted in some code running user space and this constant transition from user space to kernel space incurs a performance penalty. This is likely why many benchmarks I've seen show Vista lagging XP when it comes to the all important Frames Per Second (FPS) metric.

So if you're a gamer, XP is actually better.

Going back to security, if you're still on Windows XP, I highly recommend the following utility to get some of Vista's resiliency when it comes to malware:

http://www.download.com/RemoveAdmin/3000-2381_4-10824971.html?tag=lst-1&cdlPid=10835515

RemoveAdmin installs a proxy program with convenient shortcuts for IE and Firefox that removes administrative rights when you launch your browser. What this means is that like Vista with UAC, you won't readily be breached because unbeknownst to you, your browser has served as the proxy for instrumenting your machine with a keyboard logger. If your browser doesn't have administrative rights, then that means the browser you forgot to patch won't suddenly find itself as the agent for placing files in C:\Windows. That I/O will fail.

Not running with administrative rights is *the* reason Mac OS X has been seemingly impervious to malware for many, many years. And no, it is not the lack of market share, Apple now has almost 20% of the laptop market. It turns out Windows XP has very robust security... but few people know how to leverage it, including tech people.

RemoveAdmin is a tool MS should have provided in Service Pack 2 of Windows XP in 2004. More shockingly is the API that it leverages to work its magic, CreateRestrictedToken, was introduced with Windows 2000. Hence, MS' apathy in leveraging this API and empowering users by providing such abilities seems remiss. But I'm sure they figured if they made SP2 for XP too robust it would eat Vista's sales. Penny wise, pound foolish.

I use RemoveAdmin to strip the administrative rights of any application that talks on the Net. Browser, IM client, Outlook, etc., etc. Iterating the installer creates shortcuts but if you look closely, there's a general purpose tool at work there so you can create shortcuts leveraging it to launch other applications.

-M

[Lerianis]

Wrong. I have tested Vista with games.... Vista actually runs them FASTER, even before being optimized for Vista's driver system. The fact is that most of the people who are saying "Vista isn't good for gaming!" are running simulated benchmarks..... which are known to have a problem with Vista, saying that it runs things 10-25% slower, when real gaming...... it's actually 10-20% faster than XP in real-time gaming.
Those simulated benchmarks need to be totally rewritten, because they have a built-in flaw somewhere.

[mhinnewyork]

UAC prompts too often, which makes non-techies treat it as a nuisance rather than a warning. A boy who cried wolf sort of thing. The same concept is implemented better in Linux and probably in Macs too (I'm not a Mac user).

I use DropMyRights to serve the same purpose as RemoveAdmin. See
http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13554_1-9756656-33.html

However, it does not offer full protection - software can still install into folders the user has write access to, even if it cant install into a system folder.

Cool CNET userid. :-) Michael Horowitz

[Penguinisto]

@Michael: OSX' privilege elevation warning mechanism is implemented almost the same as you would expect in Linux - if it needs system-level (root) privileges, a small GUI pops up from the top of the monitor giving you the warning and asking you for a password. The only diff is that you type in your user account password, sudo-style. There is no UAC-like "Cancel or Allow" button that lets you slip past it by merely clicking a button.

[jezmondo]

For users of Laptops, who use them away from mains electricity Vista is (mostly) a bust. The "gee-whiz" graphics use too much power, dramatically shortening the system's battery life. Given how many machines now are laptops this isn't the smartest design decision.

Now I know there are other advances in Vista's design, but the visual improvements are the most well known (and the ones Microsoft seems keenest to talk about). Other aspects are sometimes seen as less appealing (the system of confirmations for potentially dangerous actions) and it's a hard sell to get users to like these.

[Lerianis]

Wrong! I get just a much battery life on my Vista laptops as they say you get on a XP laptop. They actually tested this where I worked for awhile..... turned out there was no or little difference. Maybe 5-10 minutes, if that lesser on Vista than XP.

[mhinnewyork]

This may vary depending on whether you are running the Aero UI or not. Then again, I 've read that some hardware manufacturers have dealt with the Vista battery life problem on their own. Michael Horowitz

[Jim1900]

When people have nothing better to do, they write about Vista. It is better than XP. Not by a huge amount for most people, but enough to want it on a new PC, or to upgrade the PC you have if your hardware is up to it. Enough said.

[GadgetDon]

Jim, you say Vista is better than XP enough to upgrade my PC if your hardware is up to it. What the article, and I, are saying is that for a lot of people, it ISN'T better enough to go through the expense and pain of upgrading. I use my PC for gaming, one of my games that I play a lot is an old one called Zeus, a citibuilder game. If it doesn't run on Vista (and if the software that allows me to "mount" a virtual CD that has it so I don't need the physical CD in place), then Vista is a significant downgrade for me. And no, looking for an upgrade isn't an option, the company that makes it isn't around.

But even setting it aside...what is this benefit that you assert is worth the cost and hassle of upgrading?