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.
Last year, I wrote that, as a computer nerd, I hold this truth to be self-evident: All new software contains bugs and design flaws. As a programmer, I can understand the inevitability of bugs. Design flaws are another matter.
The May 1st issue of Sunbelt Software's Vista News newsletter highlighted some mistakes in the design of Windows Vista.
An item called "Don't accidentally delete that Recycle Bin!" describes how a number of Vista users deleted their Recycle Bin by accident, most likely while trying to empty it. If you right click on the Recycle Bin icon on a Windows XP desktop, there is no "Delete" option. Perhaps there is a good reason to delete the Vista Recycle Bin, but even so, the option to delete it should not be somewhere that people can do so accidentally. And, deleting the Recycle Bin, since it's such an oddball thing to do, should require an extra confirmation.
If you're a Vista user without a Recycle Bin, the newsletter offers this advice: "A few weeks ago, we included a link to a KB article telling you several ways to restore a missing Recycle Bin, depending on how it came to be missing." So, you have to know how you deleted it, in order to restore it? There must have been a sale on design mistakes.
User Account Control (UAC) is perhaps the poster boy for flawed design. While it may serve a useful purpose, it annoys an awful lot of people. So many, that the newsletter carried a piece called "How to Disable UAC Prompts in Vista". But again, there seems to be a family of design mistakes.
If you're running Vista Business, Enterprise or Ultimate, there is one set of instructions. People using the Home Basic or Premium versions of Vista, have a different procedure, one that involves zapping the registry. Of course, these are the people least qualified to understand what the registry is, let alone update it.
And, if you do disable UAC, the newsletter reports, you may not be able to install the latest version of the Adobe Acrobat Reader.
A few days ago, I suggested holding off on installing Windows XP Service Pack 3, not because of bugs or design mistakes, but instead to let any and all software incompatibilities be worked out.
If you are a tinkerer, then fine, play with new software. However, if your computer is used for serious, income-producing work, you want no part of new software. Like doctors and airline pilots, software needs time to mature.
See a summary of all my Defensive Computing postings.
It seems that Michael Dell is breathing new life into his company.
A year ago, Dell was brave enough to backtrack on its Vista-only policy for consumer machines (Dell brings back XP on home systems). It also showed some independence from Microsoft by offering Linux to consumers. And again, Dell is innovating.
Fact 1: As of June 30, large computer manufacturers such as Dell and Hewlett-Packard can no longer offer Windows XP preinstalled on new computers, though Microsoft has said it would consider re-evaluating the deadline if there's enough customer demand.
Fact 2: Anyone who buys a copy of either the Business or Ultimate versions of Vista is entitled to also get Windows XP Professional.* Each computer manufacturer decides whether, or how, to implement this.
Until now, consumers who exercised their right to get XP Professional when they purchased Vista got a computer with Vista preinstalled and an XP image CD in the box (an image CD is very different from a retail Windows CD).
Dell's innovation? It will do the XP image installation for you. It may not sound like much, but the net result is that the computer leaves the factory with Windows XP Professional on it, rather than Vista.
Deadline? We don't need no stinkin' deadline.
Microsoft can't be happy about this, though a cynic would note that even though Dell computers leave the factory with XP on them, Microsoft can tally it as a sale for Vista.
It's an interesting power play between the two companies. Will other companies follow Dell or toe the Microsoft line?
According to Randy Copeland, president and CEO of Velocity Micro, after the June 30 deadline, all of its computers will ship with Vista preinstalled. The company will offer the XP Professional "downgrade" in the traditional way, by including an XP image CD in the box. Interestingly, each XP image CD will be mated to one, and only one, computer.
Dell has a Web page devoted to its new policy, Windows XP Availability, which notes that the last day to buy a computer with Windows XP preinstalled under the current rules is June 18. Afterward:
When selecting your operating system, you will see an option called "Genuine Windows® Vista Business BONUS" and "Genuine Windows Vista Ultimate BONUS." With these options, you may...have Dell factory install Windows XP Professional. You will also receive a backup media disc for Windows XP Professional, as well as the media for Windows Vista.
In other words, Dell provides optical discs for both XP and Vista, so you can change over at any time. This is not like Apple's Boot Camp, however; the computer can have only one operating installed on the hard disk at a time. But Dell provides technical support for both XP and Vista. Whether its tech support is worthwhile is another matter.
According to Infoworld, Dell will offer this new "buy Vista, get XP Pro preinstalled" service on some Latitude, OptiPlex, and Precision systems for free. It will also offer it on some Vostro and XPS systems for a small fee.
For more about getting Windows XP after the June 30 deadline, see my previous posting, Who's selling Windows XP in July?
*NOTE: Microsoft allows a "downgrade" only to XP Professional, not to the Home or Media Center editions. According to InfoWorld, large organizations with site licenses can "downgrade" from any version of Vista.
See a summary of all my Defensive Computing postings.
Mike Ricciuti of CNET says Windows XP is "doomed" and that "most of us will likely be using Vista sometime in the near future" (see Microsoft: All roads lead to Vista). In contrast, Ina Fried of CNET writes that Windows XP may get another reprieve, the title referring to the fact that major computer manufacturers are slated to stop selling Windows XP in June. Who's right?
One reason Mike cites for the Vista assimilation is that "Dell launched a Vista migration program to nudge big companies toward the OS. The PC maker's 'client migration solution' will cut migration costs..." I see this as evidence of Vista resistance. If there was value to Vista, the cost of migrating would not be an issue.
Mike also writes that "Microsoft is greasing the skids for Vista acceptance by offering free telephone support for Vista Service Pack 1 through March 2009".* Microsoft never did this with XP service packs, so why are they doing it for Vista? They are trying to get people to go where they don't want to go.
Let's not forget the price cuts to shrink-wrapped versions of Vista which were to take effect at the same time Service Pack 1 was released. As Don Reisinger wrote (see Vista price cuts show how much trouble Microsoft is in), those price cuts were really a publicity stunt.
I don't think Don's article went far enough though. To me, the price cuts were intended to break out of computer industry news vehicles (like CNET and ComputerWorld) and be reported to the general public. No techie is going to decide to go with Vista because its a few dollars cheaper today than yesterday. No, the audience for the price cut announcement was non-techies.
And the message wasn't the price cuts (hardly anyone buys Vista in a box on the shelf of a retailer). The real message was that Service Pack 1 was about to be released, news that normally stays within the IT industry. The subliminal point being that while Vista may have been bad initially, now it's OK. An unusually well done bit of PR.
As for Mike's point that "XP may work, but it's not pretty", that's damning the OS with faint praise. The four regulars on the Personal Computer Show agree on only two things: making backups and avoiding Vista. After Hank Kee kicked the tires on Vista he was challenged to provide reasons to migrate from XP. All he could come up with was a comment from his wife, "it's pretty".
Back in November, I wrote about a dog and pony show where Microsoft tried to scare people about how insecure Windows XP was. That they have to use FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) to sell Vista says a lot. Think of a politician trashing their opponent rather than touting themselves.
I wrote a trio of postings here on why I think XP is the better choice for Windows users (just comparing XP and Vista, not considering Macs and Linux)
-- I pity the fool (Windows XP good, Vista bad)
-- When to convert from Windows XP to Vista, Part 2
-- Putting Windows Vista on trial
In short, until Vista is at Service Pack 2 or has been around for at least another year and a half, it shouldn't be on your radar screen.
In large part, Mike's argument comes down to this: "I've been running Vista on three machines for well over a year. Compatibility issues are beginning to disappear, my wireless network connection no longer mysteriously vanishes, and other random glitches appear to have been fixed."
In other words, Vista works for me, so it's ready for the world. Many of the reader comments here at CNET make the same point. Vista, no doubt, runs fine for many people. That doesn't make it the right choice for you.
My perspective is defensive computing. To that end, I want mature software, and Windows XP, with 7 years of bug fixes applied to it, is the more mature option. I also want the one with the best chance of working with assorted peripheral devices. Score another for XP.
Cheap Laptops Running Linux
The personal computer field is maturing to the point that people will soon be cognizant of two hardware categories: full-blown personal computers, typified by Windows and Macs, and stripped down ones for children, senior citizens or traveling. Linux is perfect for people with simple computing needs (see Is Linux right for your mother?).
Ina thinks Windows XP will continue to be sold on what are now cheap laptops running Linux. Quoting: "The biggest area where XP is likely to stick around is in the nascent but growing market of low-cost, flash memory-based notebook computers, such as the Asus Eee PC".
I don't know that Microsoft is smart enough to see the threat from these machines. Way back, it was IBM that didn't take PCs seriously. Now, perhaps, it will be Microsoft that doesn't take simple, cheap machines seriously. Every new version of Windows is bigger and more complex. I doubt they can do simple. Large companies usually can't.
Linux does simple.** It can be stripped down as needed. In 2004 I reviewed a product called NASLite that converted an old computer into a Linux-based file server. It was a useful product, but amazing for its size - it fit on a floppy disk. A single floppy contained the operating system, networking software, an internal website used for reporting and a telnet based administrative utility.
On top of this, the Linux GUI is flexible, extremely so. No doubt this will result in some horrible user interfaces, the XO from OLPC comes to mind. But, it will also result in some that are more appropriate for children or senior citizens than a full-blown copy of Windows or a Mac. And people comfortable with Windows XP can find versions of Linux that mimic XP. One of the cheap laptops running Linux ships with a simple interface but it can be reset to the normal user interface of the underlying Xandros Linux.
Linux benefits out of the box from being immune to the vast majority of malicious software being spread online. Thus, children, senior citizens and anyone else craving simplicity doesn't have to deal with anti-virus and anti-spyware software.
The Cloudbook has a normal hard disk, but that won't last. The future for ultra-cheap laptops is flash (a.k.a. SSDs or solid state devices) and flash ram is expensive. All laptops benefit from flash ram because it's rugged, consumes less power (no moving parts) and creates less heat. Cheap small Linux machines especially need the faster read time offered by flash ram, it helps offset their relatively slow processors.
But, to keep the machines cheap, flash ram needs to be minimized. Linux is a perfect fit because it needs relatively little hard disk space. The $300 version of the Asus Eee PC has a 2 gigabyte "hard drive" that fits the operating system, applications and still leaves room for some of your data files. Try that with Vista or XP.
Microsoft may be able to brow-beat the world into using Vista on fully functional PCs, but if they walk away from XP on simple, cheap computers and cede the market to Linux, they are a dead man walking.
*How many of us believe that the free tech support from Microsoft will be useful? For example, see this item from Leo Notenboom about how Microsoft was unable to help him install a legal copy of Windows XP. They didn't know what their own error message meant. Incompetent being the applicable word.
**See my Linux vs. Windows page
Considering Vista just had its first birthday, this seemed like a good time to look at some statistics to get a feel for just how popular it is.
Microsoft issues sales figures for Vista licenses, but they have a vested interest and a corporate history that makes trusting them difficult. Market researchers come out with numbers based on surveys but the sample size is always small. That leaves usage statistics, specifically website usage.
The software that runs a web site is called a web server, the most popular programs being Apache and IIS. In addition to serving up web pages, every web server program also creates an activity log that includes information about visitors to the website. When a web browser requests a web page, it also sends information about itself to the web server in a character string called the "user agent". You can see the user agent string for your web browser here.
Reporting software, such as AWStats*, reads the log file, examines the user agent field and can determine the operating system running on the computer that requested each web page.
My most popular website is javatester.org. It offers a free service, reporting on the version of Java being used by your web browser(s). In January 2008 the site averaged 1,859 visits/day, 3,682 page views/day and 26,734 hits/day according to AWStats.
Shown above are the stats for "hits" by Windows users of the website**. Simple division shows that XP accounted for 80% of the traffic and Vista accounted for 10%.*** Next up, were Windows 2000 at 4% and Windows Server 2003 with 3%. Amazingly, someone is still using Windows 3.1.
Put another way, for every Vista user there were eight Windows XP users.
The most popular site that I can get stats for is a radio station in New York City. In January 2008 the site averaged 3,092 visits/day, 14,514 page views/day and 71,457 hits/day according to AWStats.
Shown above are the stats for Windows users of the radio station's website. The percentages are surprisingly similar to the Javatester site - 82% of Windows users ran XP and 10% ran Vista. Next up was Windows 2000 at 5% and Windows 98 at 1%.
I've said before that I think Windows XP is the better choice for Windows users than Vista. Apparently, many of you agree with me.
Slightly off-topic, but an interesting read: A computer shop's sales pitch: 'We remove Vista' by Todd Bishop at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
*All stats reported here are from Advanced Web Statistics version 6.6 (build 1.887).
**Not all users of the website are running Windows, of course, but the stats shown here are just for Windows users. Comparing the popularity of Windows vs. Macs is another topic. Unfortunately, AWStats does not break down visits or page views by operating system, only "hits".
***All percentages are rounded off.
See a summary of all my Defensive Computing postings.
On December 14th, I wrote that IBM recommends Windows XP. Unbeknownst to me, on the very same day a Lenovo blogger was griping about Windows Vista.
I don't have any Vista gripes. That's because, as I blogged about in September* I think XP is a better choice for Windows users. Personally, I've been avoiding Vista.
Matt Kohut has instead been fighting with Vista. Mr. Kohut works for Lenovo, which to some measure, makes their living selling Vista.
To me, his gripes are particularly significant. For one thing, he is not talking about a test drive or a brief review, but rather about his experiences living with Vista and the obstacles that result as he tries to get his job done. And, he works for Lenovo, so in a sense, he is biting the hand that feeds him.
In brief, his Vista problems have to do with:
--WiFi networking that used to work but doesn't any more
--A corporate print management system that won't print PDFs from the Foxit reader
--An IBM developed application that doesn't work under Vista
--An upcoming switch to a Cisco VPN that doesn't support Vista
But that's just the appetizer. This is the main gripe course:
"A few weeks ago I was talking shop with one of our field technical specialists, Henry. I mentioned my Vista issues in hopes that he had some ideas. He had an intriguing solution - installing and running a virtual machine (VM) on his PC. He is using a Vista machine with our basic factory preload but then launches and runs XP once Vista has loaded."
It's hard to imagine a more significant statement about Vista than a Lenovo employee that deals with it's problems by running XP in a virtual machine.
Ouch.
*
I make a case for XP over Vista
I pity the fool (Windows XP good, Vista bad)
When to convert from Windows XP to Vista, Part 2
Putting Windows Vista on trial
See a summary of all my Defensive Computing postings.
If you shop online for a new Windows computer, every manufacturer recommends Vista on their web site. For home use they all suggest Vista Home Premium, for business use, Vista Business gets the nod. All the manufacturers sell other versions of Vista of course, most if not all sell Windows XP too, yet their websites universally recommend Vista Home Premium or Business.
Except IBM.
Yes, IBM no longer plays in this game. Back in 2005, IBM sold their personal computer division to Lenovo.
However, IBM still sells their old notebook and desktop computers, albeit as "IBM Certified Used Equipment".
As shown in the screen shot above, IBM recommends Windows XP Professional for their refurbished computers. Most of the personal computers (they also sell refurbished servers) are, in fact, running XP Professional, though a handful are running Vista.
Why is IBM the lone wolf?
A cynic might say that since most of their refurbs are running Windows XP, it's marketing. Or perhaps the web page in question simply hasn't been updated in over a year. IBM has no love for Microsoft, so maybe it's just a cheap shot.
But, could it be that since they are no longer in the personal computer business they can offer an honest opinion? After all, in August Lenovo decided to go with Windows XP rather than Vista for the upcoming 2008 Olympics. Quoting Computerworld (Vista, wireless sidelined from core Olympic IT roster):
"Windows XP was chosen to run on all PCs handling chores vital to the Olympic Games and has been installed on most of the PCs delivered by Lenovo Group Ltd. Vista will be used only on PCs in Internet lounges set up for athletes to use during the games.
The Olympic Games require mature, stable technologies, said Yang Yuanqing, chairman of Lenovo, during a briefing in Beijing. The Olympic Games aren't a place to try new technologies because of the size and importance of the event, he said. Everything must work smoothly."
The man has a point.
See a summary of all my Defensive Computing postings.
Are you kidding me? ZDNet takes something that has been common knowledge for years and treats it as if it was news?
I'm speaking of the dog and pony show that Tom Espiner wrote about on November 13th with the eye catching headline Microsoft exec calls XP hack 'frightening'. Great headline, it got my attention.
The computer in question was running Windows XP with Service Pack 1 and was connected to an unsecured wireless network. Adding more vulnerabilities to the mix, "The machine was running no antivirus, firewall, or anti-spyware software..." according to Mr. Espiner.
I'd be afraid to be in the same room with such an obviously vulnerable machine. So, when in a demonstration, the machine got hacked, where is the news? Even to a blogger, what is there to have an opinion on? The outcome was as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.
The interesting question, is why invite the press to a demonstration of the obvious?
The term FUD has been mentioned in this blog before. It stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt and refers to tactics used to sell a product that isn't good enough to sell itself.
This was FUD for Vista, designed to scare people away from Windows XP. People who don't know any better. Two people who do know better were the techies in England that were involved in the demo. Both chose to remain anonymous. I don't' blame them.
Mr. Espiner writes "Nick McGrath, head of platform strategy for Microsoft U.K., was surprised by the incident." He was? Really? I wonder if Microsoft knows how bad things like this make them look. Even Alex Rodriguez eventually wised up.
I've written previously that anyone buying a new Windows computer should opt for XP rather than Vista:
- Putting Windows Vista on trial
- When to convert from Windows XP to Vista, Part 2
- I pity the fool (Windows XP good, Vista bad)
A stunt like this says a lot about Vista.
On October 18th in The Wall Street Journal, Walter Mossberg wrote his annual PC Buyers Guide. Using his article as a springboard, I weigh in on some of the issues faced when buying a new computer.
Vista security
The first choice anyone makes in purchasing a new computer is the operating system. In judging the relative merits of Vista over XP, Mossberg calls Vista "better than prior versions of Windows, because it has a stronger security system under the hood."
But, according to CNET's Security Watch columnist Robert Vamosi, "most of the security enhancements touted in Windows Vista don't appear in the Home Premium and Basic editions" (see "That $200 Windows XP service pack called Vista"). Specifically, Device Lockdown, Network Access Protection, Enhanced Authentication Model and the Encrypting File System (EFS) are missing. Vamosi also takes issue with security features in the Business editions.
A new security feature in Vista is outbound protection in the Windows firewall. Sounds great on the surface, but as Vamosi describes it, it's a sham (my word, not his). A good firewall that provides outbound protection will, by default, deny everything and let you specify the allowable applications. To avoid nagging too often, some firewalls are aware of common Internet applications and allow them to make outbound connections.
In contrast, the Vista firewall requires you to create a rule for each malicious application known to mankind. Outbound connections from applications that don't match an existing rule in the firewall are, by default, allowed. This pretty much renders outbound protection ineffective.
Microsoft is making the same rookie mistake it made when Windows XP was first released. At the time, they could brag that XP came with a firewall, but, by default, it was turned off. Wrong choice (from a Defensive Computing perspective). It took them about four or five years to enable it by default.
The UAC security feature (User Account Control) in Vista probably gets the most publicity. The initial design asks so many questions that some people turn it off entirely. And Vamosi points out that unlike other operating systems, Vista allows an administrator to make system changes without having to enter a password. Thus one wrong OK click and you're infected with malicious software. Are you too busy or too inexperienced with Windows to read or understand the UAC message? There goes your protection.
What Vamosi calls the biggest improvement in Vista over XP is a feature in Internet Explorer 7 that runs ActiveX controls in a sandbox. Still, he says, you are safer using Firefox or Opera, an opinion I agree with.
In making a case for Vista security, Microsoft points to the included Windows Defender anti-spyware program. But it is available as a free download to Windows XP users. More importantly, though, it's not very effective, at least according to CNET. Vamosi says: "In testing done last spring by CNET Download.com, Windows Defender missed some of the test spyware, finishing well behind other antispyware programs on the market today."
FUD
In choosing between XP and Vista, Mossberg says "buying Vista may be the better choice for the long run. Over time, more and more products will be released that are tailored to the new system."
FUD is a term known to many of us computer nerds. It refers to sales practices used when a product is not good enough to sell itself. The letters stand for fear, uncertainty and doubt. If a software vendor resorts to this, it's a red flag their product can't stand up to an objective evaluation. Mossberg here is slinging the FUD for Microsoft.
Since, he says, Vista "may" (note the use of "may" instead of "will") be the better choice in the future, buy it now. In other words, choose Vista now out of fear that XP won't be compatible with future hardware and software. FUD personified.
James Fallows, who writes for The Atlantic, fell victim to this logic. He eventually wiped Vista off his computer and returned to Windows XP.
If the day arrives when Vista is more compatible with hardware and software than XP is, it will be a very long time from now. And a case can be made that such a day will never come.
Windows XP has been around for quite a while now--six years and counting. There are way too many copies of XP in use for any software or hardware vendor to dare come out with a product that works with Vista but not XP. If you ran a hardware or software company, at what point in the future would you produce a Vista-only product?
Consumers
While Vista is the rule at retail computer outlets, Mossberg notes that "PC makers are still offering XP on a few new consumer PCs."
Where is written that a consumer has to buy a computer marketed to consumers? It's not. No matter who you are, you are free to purchase a machine marketed to businesses, and I recommend doing so.
Flavors
Regarding the different flavors of Vista, Mossberg said "the best choice for average consumers is a version called Home Premium." In some ways though, it's a poor choice.
If your needs are simple or money is tight, Vista Home basic has the advantage of being the cheapest option both in terms of paying for the OS and in terms of the necessary hardware horsepower to support it. At a randomly selected Fujitsu notebook computer, Vista Business cost $100 more than Vista Home basic. And, as noted above, there's those missing security features in the home editions of Vista.
The two flavors of Vista business may have an ace in the hole - the ability to fall back to XP, should the need arise. I say "may" because each computer manufacturer has the option, not the requirement to offer this. Many will provide an XP Recovery CD for their customers who purchase, or have purchased, a business version of Vista. See "The XP alternative for Vista PCs."
The charge for the XP Recovery CD varies by manufacturer, but in general it is provided at cost. In the cases I've seen, it is less than purchasing XP at retail and much easier to install too, as it comes with the necessary drivers, is preactivated and lays down a disk image rather than requiring you to actually install XP.
Video
Unlike Windows XP, Vista has two different user interfaces (separate and distinct from the many flavors of the operating system itself). The Home basic edition only supports one interface, the one that requires less computing horsepower to produce. The other flavors of Vista can use a flashier interface known as Aero.
Regarding the hardware needed to support Aero, Mossberg says "Vista's flashy graphical interface works best with a separate, or 'discrete,' graphics card that has its own memory."
There is a hidden gotcha here that he doesn't go into. Graphics cards come with varying amounts of video ram (also referred to as on-board memory), usually 32, 64, 128 or 256 megabytes. To run Aero, Microsoft says in one place that Vista needs at least 64 megabytes of video ram (for resolutions with less than 1.3 million pixels, give or take), but in another place Microsoft says the minimum is 128 megabytes of video RAM. Go figure.
No matter which number you chose to believe, you next have to deal with the labeling and marketing of video cards which is, unquestionably, designed to mislead. Recently Dell sent me a catalog in the mail, and the fine print at the back contains this description of a video card in one of the computers they offer:
In other words, this 128MB video card cannot run Aero because it has only 32 megabytes of video ram. Not to pick on ATI exclusively, Nvidia does the same. The Dell fine print also contained this:
This truth-in-labeling issue seems to apply to ATI Hypermemory cards and to Nvidia TurboCache models.
The Trivial
Another feature Mossberg cites as an advantage for Vista is better integrated searching. This is very much a matter of opinion. Personally, I don't want any integrated searching. But anyone who does want it can chose from many different XP-compatible products, both free and commercial. Either way, I find it hard to imagine someone switching from XP to Vista and citing the ability to find files on your own computer as a big factor in the decision.
Advice
Walter Mossberg would have probably liked to say more on some of these points but he is limited by the space requirements of his column, which literally is a column (how quaint). This does both him and his readers a disservice. Bloggers are fortunate in being able to take as many words as necessary to say what we have to say.
You don't read PC Magazine for mutual fund advice and you shouldn't read The Wall Street Journal for computer advice.
In the September 25th issue of the WXPnews newsletter, the editor, Deb Schinder wrote an article (Don't Find Vista Guilty Until Proven Innocent) in which she attacked the people attacking Windows Vista. "In way too many cases, people condemn operating systems or applications that they've never even used..." she says.
That's me. Here in this blog, I recently advised that anyone buying a new Windows based computer, should opt for XP as opposed to Vista.
Certainly, Deb's point sounds reasonable, but, if a tree falls in the woods, no one has to have been there to attest to the fact that it made a noise. Even without hands-on Vista experience, it is still fair to say that:
- Vist is less debugged than Windows XP
- Vista is less compatible with hardware than Windows XP
- Vista is less compatible with software than Windows XP
In addition to bug fixes, Windows XP's maturity includes changes to the inevitable design mistakes Microsoft always makes with a new version of Windows. For example, the initial version of XP had the firewall and the installation of bug fixes both turned off by default. Now, the XP firewall has been improved, it's on by default and so too are automatic updates.
Did Microsoft make a design mistake with Vista's UACC? While reasonable people may disagree over this, there is no doubt that there are design mistakes in Vista. I don't need to have used Vista and make my own list of design problems to know they exist and that frustration awaits for many. With Windows XP most of us have gotten used to it's quirks.
Regarding hardware compatibility, Deb says "...don't blame Vista when peripheral makers fail to provide drivers for their hardware components." While some may frame the fact that Vista is less compatible with hardware as an attack on Vista, it isn't. Nonetheless, it argues in favor of choosing Windows XP. To someone buying a new computer, where the fault lies is irrelevant.
Even while defending Vista, Deb points out "... there are some good reasons not to upgrade to Vista. If you have older hardware that's not supported and you don't want to buy new peripherals or a new machine, or if you have applications that won't run on Vista, that's a perfectly good reason to stick with XP."
Which leads to point three, software incompatibility. Here too, no hands-on Vista experience is needed to know that after six years on the market, all Windows software is compatible with XP, while some is not yet Vista compatible (and some will never be). Even if all the software you need to run now is Vista compatible, you may want or need a program in the future that's not supported on Vista. And people who are not "techies" may have other things to do with their time than research the dozens of applications on their computers for Vista compatibility.
Is the new Vista user interface better? Easier? That's a matter of opinion. Certainly everyone agrees it's pretty. But the user interface change means that time needs to be invested in learning it. At this point, people have to ask themselves whether going with a Mac might be a better choice for a new computer. If you're going to learn a different way of working, why not opt for an operating system with few malware problems?
And here too, non-techies may not have the time or inclination to deal with a new interface. So even without criticizing Vista, the familiarity of XP argues in its favor for many.
Finally, Deb says to "... remember that XP went through its growing pains, too." It certainly did. But, whereas she sees this as defending Vista, I see it as an argument in favor of the now mature XP.
While Deb might condemn me for writing about Vista with little hands-on experience under my belt, I don't think that issues such as startup times, UACC, notebook battery life or the Aero interface should be the only factors in judging Vista. I'm trying to look at the bigger picture. As it stands, Vista is too new to recommend, especially for a computer you depend on.
Like the original Saturday Night Live cast, it's not ready for prime time.
