Comments on: Microsoft COO downplays Vista update problems

The software giant's chief operating officer says he is pleased with SP1's progress, despite it breaking some third-party programs.

[Leria]

It doesn't break any programs

That were built in the way that they were supposed to be built for Vista. Microsoft only broke security programs that were using kernel hooks that they had said they didn't want the security companies to use except in the ways that they gave them.

[catch23]

Absolutely correct

>> Kaspersky said SP1 difficulties may have a negative effect on people's opinion of Vista

No, it will have a negative effect on people's opinion of Kaspersky.
MS gave them plenty of warning about kernel hooks. Time enough to fix their code to be complaint.

[Penguinisto]

Forgetting what an OS is supposed to be...

In most real operating systems, the OS gets out of the way and lets the programs do what they were built to do.

In Windows, you have a nanny.

[i]"Microsoft only broke security programs that were using kernel hooks that they had said they didn't want the security companies to use except in the ways that they gave them."[/i]

...and whose fault is that?

I blame both MSFT and the vendors.

For years, an insecure and poorly documented OS forced vendors to build apps with a whole bucketload of kludges to reach their goals.

Now, MSFT wants to (finally!) restrict what apps can and cannot do. They're surprised that app makers don't like that.

OF course, it doesn't hurt MSFT any that they sell their own security products for their own OS* (!?), and that those products have all kinds of access to the Windows internals that the competitors simply do not have.

/P

* Okay... if your OS security sucks bad enough for you to sell a security product for it separately, then I don't know who is more ignorant - the OS architects, or the consumers of that product.

And before anyone starts whining, note that OSX and Linux have no need for such things (in fact, the vast majority of Linux-based A/V products are built for scanning files to protect Windows clients!)

[Get_Bent]

SP1 doesn't change my opinion of Vista at all

I still think it's a slow, bloated excuse of an operating system. Slapping a bandaid on it doesn't change the underlying issues one bit.

[biffhenerson]

No problems with SP1 on custom built machines

I have two custom built machines running Ultimate & Enterprise to which I have applied SP1. The hardware is one to two years old and perform great. No problems whatsoever. SP1 took a good 1/2 hour to install.
In my opinion, both Windows XP and Vista are very stable. Most of the time, its the 3rd party device drivers and software that uses unsupported interfaces that cause the problems. I am in the software business. I am always amazed at the poor quality of software being sold in the marketplace.
Put a gallon of gas in your car in it will run fine. Put a gallon of water in your car it it will sputter and die. Should you then blame Ford that thier car sucks?

[njsokalski]

Well said

I agree 100%. I have been using Windows XP Pro for about 5 years now with no problem, and I once had to use Vista at work. And even though I thought the look was overdone and I didn't like the renaming and reorganizing of some of the applications, they did function correctly. I think that most people just get so frustrated with their computers they blame it on Microsoft for no good reason.

[russkeller]

What a joke.

WOW This is why Mac is finally going hit two digits in marketshare. They can't listen to customers they're too in bed with hardware manufacturers and stroking thier own egos. Otherwise they'd be like the latest Version of Linux Running the hot looking 3D apps but still backward compatable to and still capable of running on the pentium 2 generation. Not to mention more vendor friendly when it comes to getting drivers up to date instead of making them bow kneel and kiss your ring. It's really too bad these a holes own the government and can't be brought down as the monoploy they are.

[bheiser]

YMMV, apparently

Interesting. There does seem to be a wide variation in user experience with Vista. I installed it on a new custom-built machine using all current technology with a fast processor, lots of RAM, and a very high end video card. The OS itself seemed stable enough, and I loved the GUI. But after 6 months I finally gave up and installed XP. This was even after running for several weeks with SP1 (which did help performance a tiny bit, but did nothing for application stability).

Now my machine feels quick - no more sluggish menus, extremely slow disk i/o, or, worst of all, applications crashing left and right with the dreaded "application has stopped working" pop-up. I'm not talking about esoteric applications either , but common things like Photoshop CS3 and Outlook 2007.

I gave it more than a reasonable shot but ultimately my need for stability and performance won out over my preference to stay with the new OS.

[kgallagh]

Microsoft NEVER released a MS Dos 4.0 - IBM did.

For what it is worth, MS never had a 4.0. Microsoft wanted 3.2 to be the last DOS, but IBM insisted that their agreement allowed them to release their own if MS wouldn't. When they did it was called IBM DOS 4.0, the problem wasn't size, but "undocumented features". Microsoft put in a lot of interrupt calls that were not in the IBM specs, so IBM DOS didn't support them. But, most of the 3rd party apps of the time did (MS used to have a free program on their compuserve site (pre-internet) that listed all the "undocumented" calls). So, IBM had to come hat in hand to MS to beg them for a DOS 4.01, which they did produce.

Come on folks, do your homework...

[dburr13]

All Things to Everybody

When a computer operating system is as prevalent as Windows is it is difficult to build it so that every single application will run perfectly right out of the gate...The outside vendors have to share the blame for the incompatibilities that have been showing up for Vista...Vista is trying to be all things to everybody...and that's damn tough to do...So tough that Apple doesn't even try.

[Lee in San Diego]

Right

Apple tells the developers to write to OSX

[Sumatra-Bosch]

Plain and Simple: Vista is Barphware !

It's broken and everyone hates it.

Note to Steve Ballmer: Stop dancing and bellowing and release SP-3 for XP. Apologize to the world. Then call David Cutler and ask him to organize a successor operating system to XP. Lie face down on your lawn and wait until Cutler and his (non-MSFT) team are done.

Then declare victory.

[careyyb2000]

Windows Vista stable

I have been using Windows Vista for three months and have had no compatibility problems yet with any of my software. I increased the ram and it is running on a two year old Dell D610 laptop without any issues. I am experiencing some issues with my XP workstation box as of late. As for my Ubuntu workstation box... I absolutely love the speed and newly discovered excitement that it offers. I am like a kid in a candy store each time that I tweak out the system.

[as901]

Microsoft is allowed to break the law.

Years back it was made a crime to do harm or disable someone's computer. Microsoft policy is so insane that, when a person tries to update their program, that they purchased legally, but second hand, Microsoft still disables the users computer! The belief that they may disable a licensed copy, simply because it is second hand is a felony under the law, yet the law is not enforced when Microsoft does it!

Microsoft policy is to leave a back door to insure your copy is legal in their eyes.

Imagine if you purchase a home and the seller keeps a key. The seller comes in whenever he wishes. That is Microsoft policy!

Bill Gates and Microsoft believe that if you use their operating system, they own your computer and all your info! They believe they have a right to disable your computer at will, and our "honest politicians" do nothing!

That is one of many reason I am using Linux!

Mark Heinemann

[Sumatra-Bosch]

They'll Eat Your Kidneys in Front of You !

The entire company is a massive crime wave spanning the globe. You use the computer - therefore they own YOU! And everything you own! And everyone you talk to and everything they own, because they've probably pirated MSFT products, abused MSFT intellectual property (ever clicked on a mouse?) or have children who have. It all make sense if your a crazed MSFT lawyer who only talks to other crazed MSFT lawyers.

[wbenton]

I agree with MOST of what you said.

The one part I have a hard time swallowing is the following:

>>>and our "honest politicians" do nothing!<<<

That shoulc be corrected to...

and our "politicians" do nothing!

Honest Politicians is an oxymoron!!!

Walt

[wbenton]

Like Kaspersky said...

Quote:
If they don't do that, they won't be in so good a position against Mac OS X and Linux."
Unquote:

Perhaps that's the way Microsoft needs to go then!

I certainly won't miss them!

Walt