History repeating? Recalling the Vista 'upgrade'

While much of the media is tripping over itself to mark the Second Coming of Windows (aka the Windows 7 beta), I am recalling the First Install of Windows Vista.

Although I have been running Vista without major incident since January of 2008, the initial switch in August of 2007 consigned me immediately to my own private Vista hell. Let's hope that Microsoft makes the upgrade to Windows 7 easier this time.

In a personal blog post written in August 2007, I wrote: "As more people experience the fiasco that is Windows Vista, I thought I would pile on. With trepidation, I upgraded to Windows Vista. My instincts were dead-on."

The upgrade from Windows XP went far beyond the typical upgrade woes: "I can handle the usual driver problems. But the last straw was a paid call to Microsoft that lasted four hours. I know that it lasted four hours because I remember being jolted out of the stupor of my support call purgatory by the phrase, "Thank you for being so patient over the last four hours." (For about two of the four hours, the Microsoft support person was remotely controlling my computer, and I was not present for much of that time.)"

Ordinarily, calling Microsoft for paid support is unthinkable, but at that time, I had little choice. "I had wasted so much time trying to configure Vista to work with some level of stability on my network that I just couldn't afford the additional time to figure it out on my own," I wrote. "Just so you don't think I'm an idiot, the Microsoft 'expert' had just as much trouble trying to solve my myriad problems as I did. In short, he was stumped."

In trying to think of ways to describe Vista at that time, I came up with my own code name for the program: Molasses. "The computer still hung in various situations and, to appropriate a phrase used by someone else, was like molasses. Also, as pointed out by fellow sufferers, going into standby is a crap shoot: the odds are 50-50 that you'll see the Windows desktop again. Vista seems almost ingenious at finding ways to hang, besides being just slow (I won't go into my docking-station woes)."

Reboots were excruciatingly slow. "Installing the constant parade of updates, which usually require a reboot, from various software providers can, alone, be excruciating, but Vista pushes this beyond the pain threshold. On my corporate Hewlett-Packard client (a presumably stable platform used in Fortune 500 companies across the United States), I can sometimes reboot Vista without incident, but more often than not, it goes into a 10-minute reboot holding pattern (with absolutely no indication from Vista about what it's doing)."

I had no idea what Vista was doing: "It may actually be using processor cycles to do something necessary, but you would never know it."

Granted, there were a few lucky people out there who upgraded with few problems. But I would submit that these few lucky souls used Vista on a relatively simple, straightforward workstation. Anything more complex--e.g. an IIS web server and a wireless network with a windows 2003 file server--and things could take on the consistency of molasses.

[petersenj612--2008]

I work for an organization that goes to great lengths to make one or two necessary databases only available via IE on Windows. I therefore installed Vista Business and, but for a few "your copy of Vista may be stolen" or some such, it works reasonably well and runs faster than the other Windows machines in my office. Perhaps that's because it's installed an an iMac. (the best Winduuuhs computer is a Mac)

[pentest]

I read read more then one report showing that Vista runs better on a mac in a VM, then it does on a PC.

[John-D]

That is becuase the Mac's have a limited hardware set to deal with, and the Windows drivers are well written. When you have millions of users with $5 video cards, etc. OS support will be stressed.

[IndioITMan]

@pentest Really? Then you'll have no problem posting links to these said reputable reports here...please do...if you can.
So far, alll I've been able to dig up on the web is posts from people saying " I 'heard' some said that some knows someone who tried it and..." Meh!
The boys at MacWorld and MaximumPC (sister RELIABLE publications) heard the same arguement...and in 18 out of 20 tests, Vista ran better in a native enviroment verses in a VM (or Virtual PC) on PC's.(http://tinyurl.com/65w7ee
)
The two exceptions were both on $4000+ Macbook Pro's.
And the funny thing that you skip over completely...Mac's ain't Macs anymore...They're INTEL (read: PC) inside running a LINUX based OS (only it isn't OPEN SOURCE like Unix/Linux creators intended)

[commun6]

So why can't other PC box and equipment makers move toward standardized hardware sets? That is something I have never understood. Perhaps if they weren't so obsessed with making the machines as cheap as cow manure, Windows could run a whole lot better.

[camp88]

@ IndioITMan

Here'a what Walt Mossberg said, August 23, 2007:

"If you install Boot Camp on a well-equipped Mac model, it can become a blazing fast Vista computer. A few days ago I bought a top-of-the-line model of Apple?s new iMac line, and installed Boot Camp and Vista. I then tested the machine using Vista?s built-in Windows Experience Index, a rating system that goes from 1 to 5.9, with scores above 3.0 generally required for full, quick performance. My iMac scored a 5.0, the best score of any consumer Vista machine I have tested. "

"the best score of any consumer Vista machine I have tested." does that help?

[jnork]

@camp88

I'm afraid that Bootcamp isn't a virtual machine. It's a native dual boot setup; if you're running in Bootcamp, you're running native on the hardware with Apple's drivers.

Since the argument is about running Vista under a VM on a Mac vs. native on a PC, Bootcamp doesn't count.

Nice try though.

[BigGuns149]

@ IndioITMan: Mac OS X actually has more in common with BSD than Linux. You can see that there are copyright notices in OS X for the University of California, which holds copyrights related to BSD, but no copyright notices related to the use of Linux code. Your point though about Vista generally running better in a native environment still stands. Until recently most of the virtual machines couldn't even pass through DirectX 9 hardware support nevermind DirectX 10!

@ camp88 :

Mossberg's review is almost two years old and even when it was released I could get a better experience score with older hardware! Walt Mossberg is a nice guy and he makes some nice points from time to time, but when it comes to technical issues he isn't much of an expert. Furthermore, even if he were correct that his iMac had the best Windows Experience score that would be too meaningful because as some have noted the Windows experience scores aren't terribly useful information. Furthermore, as jnork accurately noted Bootcamp is NOT virtualization. Except for EFI emulating a classic BIOS there should be no difference between running it on a Mac and a non-Mac with the same hardware (ie. CPU, chipset, memory, HDD, video card, etc.). Except for using EFI as opposed to a traditional BIOS the hardware inside a modern Mac is nothing unique to a Mac.

[ewelch]

?IndioITMan -

The comment about Macs not being Macs is hilarious. That's like saying a Chevy isn't a Chevy because they switched tires from Goodyear to Michelen.

As for the Linux comment, that sort of exposes your knoweldge of OS X. OS X is actually an evolved NeXTSTEP, which came from Steve Jobs' company that was created in the late 80s. Apple bought NeXT and then adapted NeXTSTEP to the Mac. But OS X is BSD UNIX. That OS X has a proprietary user interface is one of the best things about OS X that makes it better than regular BSD UNIX. In fact, a friend of mine who is a computer scientist at the Salk Institute used to be a big BSD UNIX fan. He ran BSD on a Thinkpad. But now he's got a MacBook Pro and uses OS X (and XWindows to run UNIX and Linux programs in OS X).

So stating that OS X is different than Windows is actually a plus. That it's not open source like Linux is a plus in the same sense as the old joke about a camel being a horse designed by a committee. Linux is find for geeks who loves to tweak their computers. OS X is for people who actually want to use their computers as tools to do something besides tweak computer.

[iknowenough]

quit comparing a mac to a pc. it sickens me to think that somewhere in the world right now there are people whose sole purpose in life is to think of reasons why mac beats pc or vice versa.

besides, this post is about the transition from vista to win 7. any mac users here are just trying to flaunt their apple logo as a status symbol, thinking theyre unique from everyone else. all they did was shell out a couple thousand for something less complicated. more importantly, shut up. your self-righteous comments only make you sound like the apple fanboys you truly are.

[solitare_pax]

So is VISTA's problem here a lack of quality work on the part of Microsoft, or an absence of quality on the billions of PC boxes out there?

[rreddy4]

Vista is about worse as it gets for Microsoft, Windows, and pc users. This time, it will surely be a very smooth transition for those who decide to purchase Vista computers during the rumored upgrade period starting this July. If you have already tried Windows 7 beta like I have, you should already know that most of the drivers work (at least to some extent) straight out of the box the moment you plug in the device. Drivers are freely available online for download these days and should be much more optimized with Win7 than the Vista drivers were. An example of this is the efforts ATI is taking to actively update its drivers even during the beta phase. So it should be very painless on all fronts without all the exaggeration.

[freemarket--2008]

Correction. Most of 'your' drivers worked. You can't possibly have tested even a fraction of the drivers out there. Most likely, there still are and will be some that have problems.

[Mark_Anderson]

@freemarket

I'm going to bet it's very few though judging by the size of the drivers database.

[massfat]

Actually, most drivers work in general. It's not just a few people. Most of the drivers that MOST PEOPLE USE work with Windows 7, and it's only in beta right now. Most of the issues are coming from outdated stuff and software issues companies haven't worked on or released yet. Of course there will always be drivers that have issues. Fortunately, Windows 7 gets new drivers very quickly and their database is vast. Plus, a lot of drivers come with Windows 7 or Windows update, so you won't have to go to a lot of trouble.

[pithenumber]

@freemarket
with my endless system upgrades and client computer builds, most Vista drivers work with 7

[John-D]

I hope you were never a professional IT person. Your problems with Vista lack specificity and seem speculative at best. And your closing statement that ?there were a few lucky people out there who upgraded with few problems? is not statistically factual. I?ve used Vista since its beta days on 4 systems of varying generations and performance levels and never encountered the kind of hard failure problems you describe.

Yes, I was disappointed with Vista?s performance compared to XP on my older systems; and yes the new UI was not as intuitive as I would have liked. These are not, however, to be unexpected with a new OS that can support as large an array of software and hardware as Windows does. Of course, potential users were able to evaluate software and hardware compatibility before they purchased Vista so no one should have been as ?surprised? as your were.

I think we will all find Win7 to be less of a ?problem? since it builds on Vista code and does not really start over (especially with respect to drivers). Stay cool!

[tm_anon]

Linux supports at least as much hardware as Windows, as well as Windows, especially Vista and, since Windows 7 uses the same kernel, as much hardware as Windows 7. Many Linux distros run faster and more smoothly than Windows using the same hardware with many fewer problems.

My point isn't that Linux is better than Windows. My point is, if Linux can do this well and it has such a small percentage of desktop/laptop/netbook users, why can't Windows (which has a commanding lead of the field currently) do better? You may try and point out that it's the companies who produce the drivers who have to do better. Linux doesn't get nearly the same support from those companies and yet their are fewer problems with older hardware, fewer problems with hardware that's not "top of the line", fewer problems with just about any type of driver around.

Apple has a reason it can do better than Windows when it comes to driver support, but Linux runs on the same hardware. Just something to think about.

[Starderup]

Maybe you are new to technology, but Microsoft themselves have recommended clean installs rather than upgrades since Win85.
I'm sorry, but anybody that goes through all that and then spends 4 hours on the phone with Microsoft instead of cutting their losses and doing a new install and importing their data and settings from a backup has no business giving anybody else advice.

[tomws]

@Starderup: If they want to force clean installs, that's one thing, but they provide "upgrade" versions. Slapping that word on the box suggests that the product should, indeed, provide an upgrade and a working one at that.

And the recommendation to "cut and run" should only be proffered by mom-and-pop tech support staff - that is, people who don't know how to fix the real problem. The 4-hour phone call represents the Vista problem: that even those who really DO know how to fix it can't actually fix it.

[mytutorguy]

I think it's a moot point as to which OS or platform is better. Soon, within a few years, there will be NO choice. We will have a simple terminal and we will all store our applications, documents, pictures and all the rest on Microsoft's servers...for a fee, of course. Microsoft has already begun the move to push this "feature." What the heck, we simply rent our computers as it is because Microsoft expects us to upgrade the OS every year or two. It's all smoke and mirrors and another excuse to get us to part with our money frequently and in copious amounts.

[jnork]

"And your closing statement that ?there were a few lucky people out there who upgraded with few problems? is not statistically factual. I?ve used Vista since its beta days on 4 systems of varying generations and performance levels and never encountered the kind of hard failure problems you describe. "

Oddly enough, you've given the same statistical evidence to support your argument that you lambasted him for: a sample of one. Our part-time IT guy has the same attitude: it went smoothly for him, once, on one machine, so he wants to switch the entire office over in spite of the fact that everybody in the office who is running it is complaining about poor performance and poor hardware support.

I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you. I haven't done any statistical analyses myself. Just pointing out a minor inconsistency in your argument.

Have you got any links to back up your side? (Preferably of independent studies?)

[John-D]

jnork,

A "few out of [several million installs]" is not a statistic, it's a statement. Mine is a statistic, 4:4 = 100%, albeit limited :-)

You did miss my more important point, however, in that a potential Vista user was given the tools by MS in advance to determine its compatibility with existing SW and HW. I knew which of my systems should stay on XP; which would support Aero; and which needed driver and application software updates prior to installing Vista. Your part-time IT guy should use that information to determine if the systems in your office can or should be updated with Vista.

[massfat]

Vista runs perfectly fine if you know how. In fact, for the average person, Vista runs very well I believe. I do not know of any statistical analysis to back this up, but every person I know who has used Vista has had no major problems with it. The upgrade to XP from earlier versions were probably very hectic too, but then Vista introduces some major changes to the core of the OS, so you really can't expect it to function very well with old stuff. Anyone remember ME, and how it lead to XP?

Linux might have better support, but there's much less a normal person can do with Linux. And as for the people who claim to be IT pros, well then you shouldn't have any problems customizing Vista to your needs, which is exactly what I've done and gotten higher performance than XP by customizing Vista's features. I don't consider myself to be an IT pro either.

[Seaspray0]

@tm_anon. Not quite the same. The major graphics card makers are not writing and releasing drivers for linux. They have refused because of the GPL and it's requirements. The driver would include proprietary code needed to make the graphics chips use new or advanced features (which the maker does not wish included in the GPL). Nor will they release the proprietary information to linux programmers to allow them to write the drivers (again, would make their proprietary software part of the GPL). What you are getting for the cards is a generic driver that doesn't take advantage of the full potential of the chips. Yes, linux supports the hardware, but not all the features of it.

For the average person, this isn't really that big of an issue. For the gamers or those who need to push the graphics to the limits, it is an issue.

[Super2online]

Rebooting while connected to a large corporate network can be an extreme lesson in patience. My guess is your sitting there waiting for it to connect, validate, and authorize to everything else. It can also be a major wait to access files on drives elsewhere on the network as well.

[timber2005]

Thats what I was thinking also when I read that line.

[Dan7637]

windows7 is going to be just as hard to upgrade to from xp just like vista was, dee dee dee's sticking with xp

[john55440]

I currently use Vista SP1 Preinstalled, and have no real complaints.

Since Win7 is largely based on Vista SP1, upgrading current Vista machines to Win7 should be fairly smooth.

[freemarket--2008]

"Since Win7 is largely based on Vista SP1" then why on earth would you pay to upgrade? Either it's significantly better or it's the same. Which is it?

[pithenumber]

its inner workings is Vista
its faster and the UI has changed

Try Windows 7 Beta

[massfat]

Win7 is NOT largely based on SP1. It is based on VISTA in general, but with massive improvements.

[delf76]

Four hours? holy crap... i would have given up and done a clean install at that point. There comes a point where you just need to throw in the towel and just do a complete clean re-install---which is what I recommend anyways.

[BigGuns149]

Historically I have heard too many horror stories to even waste my time with "upgrade" installs because you often end up reinstalling some applications anyways.

[Lerianis]

That's funny.... I've never had any problems with upgrade installs, dating back to Windows 95 from Windows 3.11. The 'horror stories' I have heard in regards to upgrade installations have NOT been my experience, not at all.

Something tells me that some people are blaming problems on 'upgrade installs' when they have a virus or something else bad on their machine, therefore THAT is the reason why they are having problems.

[IndioITMan]

@Lerianis Or just plain ol' PEBKAC errors with peeps to impatient to RTFM before upgrading! LOL

[massfat]

If you can't install an OS within 4 hours, either your computer is dying, or you have no idea what you're doing, and even then, installing shouldn't take too long... Anyway, I believe the 4 hour issue was not actually installing but making the OS work with the network. That might be an issue depending on how the network was set up originally and all, but you really shouldn't blame the OS for that.

[jcliftonmeek]

Given the rate of change of all things tech, I'm surprised that no one else has commented that the author clearly has a lack of imagination to believe that a comment regarding his unique (and not altogether competent) experience a year and a half ago is in any way a useful comment on the present. yes, Vista had issues on upgrade, yes it stringently required new drivers if not new hardware (recall that for most major Mac OS upgrades, the hardware demand was simply an entirely new computer). The only significant issue to be stated is that this new MS OS is derived from Vista, so XP OS upgrades are likely to be subject to problems. Huge news flash.

[IndioITMan]

@jcliftonmeek I apologize for my posting before reading ALL the comments; esp. yours, as I would have just posted as a reply to yours, with cudos to what you pointed out (same as I did, only with a little less tact and more "grrr!" LOL.) I must be extra tired (of hearing old news!) as I don't usually get this tweaked over "MEH!" articles.

[sparrowhyperion]

I have been running a dual boot system with Vista Ultimate 32bit and XP 32Bit. I have only had to go into XP once, and that was to correct a file permission problem. It's a bit slow at some things (like moving large files around my 4 1TB Drives), but for most of my work which is 3D modeling, it's very fast on my Phenom X4 system. It's a lot like Millennium. Some people hated it and could never get it to work right, whereas some of us had absolutely no problem with it.

BTW, is it me or did this article seem kind of pointless?

[IndioITMan]

@sparrowhyperion I'll vote with you...1 more for 'pointless.'

[BigGuns149]

I differ with the comparisons to Windows Me insofar as that except for the overrated system restore and the exclusion of real mode DOS there wasn't much new in Me. Vista while perhaps ironically shipped too quickly is a dramatic change relative to XP.

[iknowenough]

this article is just used to exploit a plausible scenario into traffic. lets talk about it when it happens, k? otherwise, all we got to talk about here is pc vs mac, haha...

[uhpl508]

Personally, I bought a new machine when Vista came out so I never "upgraded to Vista" and the new machine ran fine. I am currently on the same machine upgraded to Windows 7 and other than one missing driver that was easily obtained everything is running fine.

[BigGuns149]

This is a good point. Most user have *never* upgraded *any* version of Windows. By the time they feel the need to go to a newer version of Windows their hardware is so old they are ready for a new computer anyways. This has often been cited as a reason that Linux hasn't caught on more. Most people don't want to install an OS. They prefer to buy a computer that already has the OS installed and until recently there were few major vendors selling machines with Linux preinstalled.

Therefore, I doubt that the ease or lack of ease of the installer with make much of a difference into whether people like Windows 7 or not. For a myriad of reasons most people are far happier with an OS if it is preinstalled than if they have to do an install themselves.

[iknowenough]

BigGuns, i completely agree. it is pointless to upgrade to another operating system if the one that is already being used works fine. whatever comes with the computer should be fine, and when it gets ancient or quits working all together, buy another computer (which comes with a newer OS) and move on.

for some reason, people like to own the biggest and best thing whenever its out just to brag about it. i prefer style and functionality over a month-old fad.

[shanedr]

I have never understood why anyone would be foolish enough to upgrade to a new OS. Installing service packs is one thing but an entirely different OS?

When you buy a computer it comes with an OS, stay with it until you buy a new computer. The company that assembles that computer has a vested interest in making it fully functional because they know if the customer has problems they are almost certain to return it. When you upgrade you bypass the protection provided by its builder.

[Lerianis]

No, you should NOT stay with an OS until you buy a new computer. The fact is that for the usual user in the home, upgrade installs go smoothly. The one time an upgrade installation DIDN'T go smoothly that I saw..... when I scanned the drive....... holy hell, there was TONS of malware and viruses on the machine!
I berated the person then, even though I was being PAID to fix their machine and told them "You are an idiot! This whole problem could have been avoided by installing anti-virus software!"

[Spanwite]

I was "foolish" to do that, from ME to XP Pro on a Laptop.
It worked great, I'm happy I did it. Still running good. Hardware is not more the best, but I can wait to get a new Laptop until at least a half year after Win7 release happened.
Also it was cheaper as to buy a new PC again. I will not buy every 2years a new PC, to make this Corporations happy.

[Inconnux]

I talked to a lady who use to do tech support for Vista and she said she got death threats... Vista is a disaster but Im pretty jaded when it comes to Microsoft products. Wait until Win7 service pack 1

[BigGuns149]

***? Some people are downright stupid if they think that the tech has anything to do with the quality of the software. Even if the tech support person works for Microsoft they probably had no role in the development of the product.

[Joetwopointoh]

Windows 7 "beta" is already more stable more robust and much better behaved than Vista SP1. I just hope they don't muck it all up with fixes by the time it's released!

[Lerianis]

That's a possibility. There is a good possibility that when Microsoft 'fixes' the complaints in Windows 7 (yes, there are some, speaking as someone who LOVES the OS thus far).... that the performance will decrease.

[pauldb]

I don't think so. I do this for a living. Windows 7 1608 was rock solid, loaded on anything. 7000 has yet to show me any stability on over 2 dozens different installs.

[james_hargreaves]

I bought a 17" HP laptop with Vista preinstalled. Fortunately I had an extra XP Install on hand, since it crashed every 15-20 minutes. It never crashes under XP, so I doubt there's a hardware issue. Maybe SP1 fixed that issue, but I'm unimpressed enough that I haven't found out. Here's to windows 7 being better, it could hardly be worse.

[BigGuns149]

When Vista has launched HP shipped a lot of machines that had downright terrible drivers. I was selling laptops at the time and HP messed up big time with their machines insofar as that it would have been completely obvious had they done virtually *any* QC in their product design the issues would have been averted. I knew one customer who went through THREE HP laptops before they resolved the issue. Meanwhile, at home I had Vista on several different computers with no issues. Heck, most of the laptops from other vendors didn't have the same problem.

The moral of the story is that I think that your problems were more due to HP then they were to Vista. I have run Vista for weeks on end without restarting. Virtually all the reboots I can remember doing were due to updates that required a reboot. I wouldn't say Vista is perfect or even that there are some things that I liked about XP better than Vista, but I think that your small sample size is incredibly small and arguably misleading.

[freemarket--2008]

@BigGuns:

So MS changing the driver specs (again) late in the cycle had no impact whatsoever? Or is it just OK for MS to dictate to everyone else when to do what? It's always someone else's fault.

[BigGuns149]

@ freemarket--2008:

I don't question the fact that Microsoft made numerous changes in Vista that delayed shipment years didn't help matters any, but if it was Microsoft's fault as you imply then why did so many other vendors ship computers that didn't have as many issues? All the other vendors (Toshiba, Sony, Lenovo, Fujitsu, etc.) seemed to figure out what motherboard chipset/driver combinations worked well together and sold that to customers.

HP on the other hand had machines that sometimes wouldn't even boot properly. At the store I worked at we had several laptop demos with Vista that we took out of the box and virtually all the HP demos had stability issues meanwhile none of the other vendors had issues. If Vista was the problem than *every* computer should have been affected.

Furthermore, Microsoft gave all the vendors ~3 months after the gold code was finalized in order to prepare their products for the launch of Vista, which was more time than they gave vendors to deal with virtually any other Windows launch. I am not going to absolve Microsoft from blame for some of the launch issues with Vista, but I don't see how Microsoft was responsible for vendors sitting on their hands when it came to driver development.

[redgrass]

As you say I have spent an innordinate amt of time getting vista to run as expexted..now that it is... a new change is on sight. Molasses??? my butt... a painful sore more likley... can we expect any better from a company that raves in quasi Monopoly?

[docparkny]

have insisted on WinXP on all my computers, my company still on WinXP. Don't expect to upgrade for a long time. Why when all the functionality just works. For the fun stuff, I have a Mac. Nyah, nyah.

[pithenumber]

The Mac doesn't have much fun stuff
unless
*it runs Crysis at near max setting, native resolution for the monitor
*lets me play with the hardware
*It runs most games at max setting/max resolution
*does it for $600-$800
not interested

Mac isn't meant for fun stuff, unless you think looking at the nice UI is fun

[tehrani625]

I like my vista laptop. Its not that slow, it takes forever to start up but after that its not bad. I like windows 7, and am running it in a virtual machine. Its amazing how little vram it needs for basic stuff. I can't wait to play games on it.

[Daddio2009]

...and here I sit at my iMac running OS-X...remembering the fiasco of Microcrud products. The OS-X upgrade to Leopard took so little time (and no errors), it almost made me forget that PCers are not so lucky. A shame, too!

[IndioITMan]

@Daddio2009 The thing that has always bugged me about the great and powerful OS X is that you have to keep buying it (upgrades at least annually @$99 a pop) and "major upgrades" cost even more and break everything that used to work with the previous version(s) so you either have to replace your periphrals or your Mac...or both! Yuck.
This video pretty much tells it like it is: http://tinyurl.com/dfhz7z

[iknowenough]

and yet here i am running vista with no problems whatsoever, thinking that somewhere, some guy named Daddio2009 shelled out a few thousand for a shiny piece of metal with an apple symbol and is bragging about it. its too depressing to think about it. i was enjoying my PC games too...maybe ill go on itunes so i can get a better feel about what he is going through. wow, look at all the overpricing! so sad...

[Mark_Anderson]

@Daddio

Does your 'no errors' also include the six service packs you've had to install so far?

Just askin'.

[gggg sssss]

@ Mark_Anderson SIX service packs? How clueless can anyone actually be?

[Grem135]

Yea, sit there on your over priced Mac, I have installed Vista on an old 1.6 P4 just because they said it would never work... didnt have a single problem though it could have used more ram.. 1 gig on that old slow box just didnt keep up.
and to that muppet that got 5.0 vista exp index and thinks thats the best... my AMD box gets 5.1 (old 4200+) and my quad gets 5.7.....it was held back by cheap ram... live and learn.
list of PCs
6600core2 quad 8gig ram Vista 64 ultimate
4200+ AMD 1.5gig ram triple boot Vista 64 Ultimate, Ubuntu, OS X Tiger..... just to prove i could
P4 1.6 its back to XP Pro. think 1 year of vista proved my point and put it back in service as a file server

[Mark_Anderson]

Let's see...

10.5.1, 10.5.2, 10.5.3, 10.5.4, 10.5.5, 10.5.6

Hmm...

I make that 6, chief! :)

[Dalkorian]

Winblows apologists often mistake any updates as service packs because that's what their slave master calls them. Forgive them for their ignorance and pity them for the pain they enjoy.

[gggg sssss]

@ by Mark_Anderson Sorry I thought you suggested 6 Vista service packs. Need new glasses

[iknowenough]

yeah, ive updated my vista, but then again so does everything else, so i can hardly see how that is a valid point.
itunes itself is on, wat, version 8?
on the other hand, im sure apple's library of drivers and software isnt exactly as broad as on windows...
so updating isnt really a common fix for you, now is it?

[ccwsoftware]

Your "headline" is utter crap. "History repeating?" Relate to us your Windows 7 installation horror stories, please, and illustrate how history is repeating with Windows 7. There isn't even a hint of installation issues with Windows 7 anywhere in your article, yet you chose "History Repeating?" You and your attention-grabbing but completely bogus headline are an embarrassment. You need to leave the business.

[Daddio2009]

I love reading all the comments on Vista, Win97, Win95...and the "savior" Win 7. When will PC users get with it and buy Apple iMacs? My iMac runs Windows programs (faster) and OS-X is orders of magnitude more stable and easier to use than anything that Windows could ever imagine.

[popereel]

Daddio...you're a nob
I have Leopard, XP, Vista and Win 7 - Win 7 is unbelievable considering how many different pieces hardware it has to cater to and so far it is kicking leopards butt in most cases - I was going to buy a MacBook Pro recently but stopped short for two reasons(although I think it is a great product) - price and I don't want to be associated with the weird Mac cult - ever go into an Apple store and watch all the Mactards...halarious! Oh wait...you are one. Before you open your yap with statements like "OS-X is orders of magnitude more stable" perhaps you should try using OS-X for more than browsing and emails and then you might get tired of that annoying pinwheel of death!
Oh yeah and good luck on trying to do any hardware upgrading on your iMac -

[pjhenry1216]

If the Mac really was better, they would not be so far behind in the numbers. Yes, other factors influence market share, but in the end, quality is the biggest factor. If it can't make up a bigger market share, it signifies its quality is at best only slightly better than Win, at worst, is worse than Win, but most likely is on par with Windows.

[Jonathan]

I bought a Mac 3 years ago. November I sold it and moved back to Windows. I will NEVER use a Mac ever again.

1. Their hardware is for crap. Focusing on form over function. Initially I didn't think this would be a problem. The issue is Apple hardware ages 10x faster then everyone else because they put in lower(cooler) hardware. This leads to point 2.
2. Apple's hardware is too damn close to the thermal threshold where the system can maintain stability. The reason for this is simple. Steve "I walk on iWater" Jobs has decreed that 1. There will be as little fan noise as possible. 2. The the thing must be as thin as possible. This results is a system that gets insanly hot when I do some ripping on it. As a result I had 2 system board die out on me because of Apple's retard bahavior. It wasn't AFTER I discovered SMCFanControl and set my system to ALWAYS run at 2,000 RPM and keep my system cool did that thing become reliable. Until that time I took my Mac in 4, count em, 4 times for repair. After the fourth time they replaced the system outright. Then I took it in another 3 times in the last 2 years. One because the system's audio port somehow managed to get stuck in digital mode, one for the fan being stuck at high no matter what I did, even zapped PRAM, and one because the optical drive died on me. This leads into point three.
3. Apple is the ONLY company I know of other then something like Geek Squad that requires you to drop off your laptop so it gets in a "line" to be repaired. The alternative is to send it in to Apple in which case you can guarantee that you won't see the damn thing for a WEEK, at least. All told over a 3 year period Apple has had my laptop for over a month and outright KILLED my productivity. Dell, Gateway, HP all have support personal who will come to you. They will come onsite and repair your system when they get the part. Apple's warranty is as expensive, in many cases more expensive then everyone else's and yet they have this archaic type of support.
4. Then there is the fact that virtually everyone else has accidental damage warranties and can extend your warranty when the initial one goes out...can Apple? Nope. 3 years and you are done.
5. Now lets get into software. I've used Windows since 3.11. I've dabbled with Apple on and off. However I've used early releases of Windows NT 4, Windows 98. Windows 2000, Windows XP, and yes even Vista. None of those OS's have been as buggy as Tiger and Leopard out of the box and that is purely from observation. In my life I've never seen such crap QA. But that applies to both hardware and software. Apple does NOT do QA, or if they do its so limited that a metric crap ton of bugs falls through the sifter. I know of NO Apple user who thinks its a good idea to use first gen Apple hardware or software. When Tiger came out I was on the Intel version of it for my MBP. The day I got my MBP I found a nice big fat bug that could KP the system EVERY time. I migrated from Windows XP. I was using PSP as an image browser. The thing generated a thumbnail file in the directory. so I did a search in finder for these files. There were several hundred. Highlighted them all, and dragged them into the garbage, well since there were so many files by the time it got to the bottom of the list spotlight, being retarded, found the items in the garbage and added them into the list. The result? The system was loop deleteing and it KPed the damn OS. Since that time I've been able to KP my system at least once per month. After the 5th "update" it got down to once every 3-4 months. Then we went to Leopard. Snappier, but with its own set of buggy crap.

TBC on next post....

[Jonathan]

Like WIFI that became totally erratic. So much so that I had to reboot to get it to work again. At that point I just started to use the damn thing as a desktop and NEVER took it out of the house. By 10.5.3 things got better but I had come to the determination that Apple is more concerned with glitz then functionality. This impression has been confirmed with the announcement of 10.6 An OS that Apple themselves has said is intended for "under the hood" cleanup. IMHO this is market speak for we put in a crap load of features without taking the time to make sure our OS was tidy under the hood so now we need to go back and clean our crap up.
There is no love lost between me and MS. However corps are holding their feet to the fire. MS has a reason to make their crap smell as good as possible. Apple? Heck if Apple but out a turd shaped Mac many Apple user's would buy it to support them. Apple users NEVER hold Apple accountable for their behavior and as such they think they can get away with anything. MS has been so beaten and bloodied over the last 3 years that they know they need to do a better job then ever before or they are going to be screwed. THIS is why Windows 7 works so well on older hardware. They heard the people complaining and did something because they knew that saying "well just get a new computer" wasn't enough. TBC.....

Basic gist of all of this. When Apple demonstrates that they care about their users, care about QA, care about listening to their users, care about giving users options (Customization in OS X is a joke out of the box), and care about listening to what people want. Then I will consider them again. Until then Steve Jobs can take his i crap and shove it up it iHole.

PS- Wow that was therapeutic.

[qhcomputing]

Daddio why all the Windows bashing? It amazes me that Mac users bash Windows, and then proceed to say they are running Windows on their Macs. If Windows is so bad, why run it at all, why talk about it? Apples are a fad my friend... Keep using your apple and keep your lips zipped. I think just about everyone is tired of the Windows vs. Mac BS....

[pithenumber]

Benchmarking, what is really faster?
*$600 home built
--specs:
--Phenom II 940 @4.2 GHz
--Radeon HD 4850 core@690 memory@1000
--4 gigabytes of DDR2 800 RAM 5-5-5-15 latency
--salvaged case, 30inch monitor,cd dvd drives
--320 gigabyte 7200rpm hard drive from old build
*iMac 3.06GHz 24inch

The home built won in every benchmark by a few miles
PC's are faster, and cheaper too

[gggg sssss]

uh Daddio - If your Mac was so good and useful why woudl you shell out another $300 for windows and windows softare? Maybe not taht useful after all.

[i8246i]

Win97......


I must have missed that version (lol)

[BigGuns149]

@ Jonathan:

I slightly disagree with the notion that 10.4 Tiger was so bad, but I have to agree with virtually everything else you have to say about Apple's computer line. The OS is nice in some respects, but they tend to focus on niche model computers in my opinion. I think Apple is silly in that they want to try to differentiate themselves via their hardware design when hardware wise Macs 99% the same. Except for using EFI as opposed to a more traditional BIOS virtually everything else is the same. Therefore, the only benefit I see to a Mac is the software. I am more than willing to pay for quality software, but the price premium for individuals whose needs don't closely match one of the Apple's limited models is somewhat high.