What's wrong with Vista?

[SPXTrader]

Huh...thanks!

 

[monsterdog]

Their recent "Mojave" ad campaign should tell you what a bad experience Vista has been for them. That's what they get for making a cheap-ass copy of OSX.

Am I the only person who is more than a little annoyed with the overt political correctness attempt in those commercials? "Lets see how many minorities we can cram into a 30 second ad spot" kind of thing.

 

[Mitchell Knives]

Am I the only person who is more than a little annoyed with the overt political correctness attempt in those commercials? "Lets see how many minorities we can cram into a 30 second ad spot" kind of thing.

You're not the only one.

However, Apple advertising seems to target the "dirty hippy" market.

 

[jerrinfla]

If Vista was the "best," Microsoft wouldn't be scrambling to make Windows 7. It's not just a marketing failure, and it's not just jealous people of the world poo-pooing it..

Yeah they would be scrambling to release a new version of windows regardless of how well or poorly Vista works. They will always want to make as much money as they can from people upgrading to a newer version of windows. That'll never end.

Am I saying that XP is superior in all ways? Hell no. Vista certainly has some upgraded capabilities, but they don't seem to offset all of its problems. Like I said, just look at the business world. The companies couldn't care less whether the OS they use is popular: the almighty dollar is the bottom line and that is usually best attained through efficiency.

I think the main reason Vista hasn't taken off is because Microsoft actually did a pretty good job on XP after all the patches etc to date. XP is solid and stable. If you use Windows there is not much of a reason to upgrade to Vista from a current install of XP.
That said, I don't find Vista to be a memory hog. I ran 64 bit Vista on an old socket A motherboard with 512k or ram and it ran fine. It just doesn't use any of the fancy desktop effects but it ran at around the same speed as XP on the same computer. Vista actually uses your ram more efficiently than XP does.
I might have missed all the initial problems with Vista because the copy I bought already had SP1 installed.

 

[estanaway]

Simple, it isn't Linux, or OS X

 

[ThinkOfTheChildren]

Yeah they would be scrambling to release a new version of windows regardless of how well or poorly Vista works. They will always want to make as much money as they can from people upgrading to a newer version of windows. That'll never end.

Eh, it's not in their interest to always be introducing new OS's too quickly. Unless each new version offered something amazing, no one would be running out to buy it. Earlier generations of Windows got away with quicker release times because they were so unstable. With the promise of a little more stability, people were willing to upgrade. As you point out though, XP is now stable and people will expect future versions of Windows to be as well. So if Microsoft chooses to introduce BS new versions every two years unnecessarily, people will catch on quickly and leapfrog, rendering entire generations worthless.

My understanding is that Windows 7's timetable was pushed forward (i.e. earlier) significantly because of Vista's failure in the market.

Windows Me - released 2000
Windows XP - released 2001
Windows Vista - released 2006/7
Windows 7 - released 2009

Notice the pattern? Abortion OS's being followed up very quickly by new versions. Why weren't they scrambling between 2001 and 2006 but scrambling their asses off between 2007 and 2009 (while simultaneously launching crazy ad campaigns)? It's most certainly not just a 'constantly upgrading' phenomenon.

I think the main reason Vista hasn't taken off is because Microsoft actually did a pretty good job on XP after all the patches etc to date. XP is solid and stable. If you use Windows there is not much of a reason to upgrade to Vista from a current install of XP.

That is definitely a good point, but I just don't think that it's the 'main' reason. One solid reason? Yes.
Remember though, it's not just people who resisted (or had no interest in) upgrading their current hardware: there were the countless people who "downgraded" their machines that came equipped with Vista because of various issues. Microsoft resisted at first, but then eventually had to start helping people out with this effort. My Mother's PC that she bought two months ago came with Vista installed but with an XP disc included. The first thing we did was roll her back to XP. Do I think that the current version of Vista would fail her in her particular daily uses? No. But there's no point in her learning a new OS that will clearly be extinct in short order. I'm sure Windows 7 will have many similarities in terms of the UI, but if that turns out to be a solid OS, she might as well learn on that.

 

[proud2deviate]

This thread got my attention, so I decided to give Windows 7 a try. I downloaded the 7000 build and set it up to dual boot, so I could preserve XP. So far, it seems pretty slick. Starts up quickly, runs smooth. The released Vista drivers for my machine seem to work fine. I've been able to get my fingerprint scanner and graphics card working.

Task manager shows that it idles using about 750 megs of memory, but I don't have any additional startup programs to bog things down yet. The current theme is a little bright, (oh, how cute, a beta fish. . .) but it's quite pretty otherwise. Very slick and smooth.

Programs run quickly. The responsiveness has been quite impressive so far. Very snappy. I really hope they don't bugger this one up before the final release. . .

I'm running a Toshiba Tecra A9-S9015X laptop, Intel Core 2 Duo T7500 @ 2.2Mhz, 4 Gb of RAM installed.

 

[SPXTrader]

Interesting. I don't have my key number yet (may not get one this late), but have you tried adding the Win Bar to your start menu?

http://www.snapfiles.com/get/winbar.html

I'm running this on all my computers, and it's difficult to use another system that doesn't have it installed. Great info on your system that's always there.

 

[proud2deviate]

Interesting. I don't have my key number yet (may not get one this late), but have you tried adding the Win Bar to your start menu?

http://www.snapfiles.com/get/winbar.html

I'm running this on all my computers, and it's difficult to use another system that doesn't have it installed. Great info on your system that's always there.

I've never used Winbar before, but it seems to have installed just fine. For the windows version, it says "Unknown (NT Platform)". I'm not sure if it's reporting my memory usage incorrectly, or if I need to adjust the configuration/learn to read it better. It says I'm using 0Mb/2047. (The Windows CPU meter shows I use between 22 & 25% most of the time.)

As for the key, I didn't need one to install. There was an option to put one in, and another option to activate later online (I chose that one.) Just now, under my System Properties, it showed I had 30 days to activate. I copied/pasted one of the keys that Google gave me, and it accepted just fine. From what I've read, the keys are not unique. The five public keys I found are:

6JKV2-QPB8H-RQ893-FW7TM-PBJ73
QXV7B-K78W2-QGPR6-9FWH9-KGMM7
TQ32R-WFBDM-GFHD2-QGVMH-3P9GC
GG4MQ-MGK72-HVXFW-KHCRF-KW6KY
4HJRK-X6Q28-HWRFY-WDYHJ-K8HDH

(not sure if I'm allowed to post those here. Can a mod advise, please?) Those are for the 32 bit version. 64 bit has different keys. Also, these are for build 7000. I'm not sure if they'll work with earlier versions, but keys for those are easy enough to find.

One last thing; you know that the beta version is set to expire sometime around July, right? Definitely keep your current OS available.

 

[jerrinfla]

So if Microsoft chooses to introduce BS new versions every two years unnecessarily, people will catch on quickly and leapfrog, rendering entire generations worthless.

My understanding is that Windows 7's timetable was pushed forward (i.e. earlier) significantly because of Vista's failure in the market.

Windows Me - released 2000
Windows XP - released 2001
Windows Vista - released 2006/7
Windows 7 - released 2009

Notice the pattern? Abortion OS's being followed up very quickly by new versions. Why weren't they scrambling between 2001 and 2006 but scrambling their asses off between 2007 and 2009 (while simultaneously launching crazy ad campaigns)? It's most certainly not just a 'constantly upgrading' phenomenon.

I think the amount of time between the release of XP and the release of Vista was uncommonly long for Microsoft. Look at their pattern going back to early DOS. Bear in mind that except for DOS 4 & Windows ME, every release had something of major impact up to XP. Like back in early DOS, being able to use an entire 60 megabyte hard drive in one partition, or loading your device drivers in extended memory above 640k. Or scalable fonts in Windows 3.1, that alone was good reason to upgrade from 3.0. Going from the FAT 16 file system to the FAT 32 file system in Windows 95 OSR2. Going from the FAT 32 file system in Windows 98 to the NTFS file system in XP. What's compelling in Vista? It does have the codec for DVD video built in and can write data to DVDs without added 3rd party software, but that doesn't appear to add up to a big reason to upgrade. However, eventually when motherboards increase the amount of ram they can use and programmers pump up their programs enough to require more than 4GB of ram, you're gonna have to leave XP behind anyway. Here's a brief history of Microsoft operating system releases. I'm don't think they've ever had a gap anywhere near as large as the one from XP to Vista.

1984 - August MS-DOS 3.0, PC-DOS 3.0

1985 - March MS-DOS 3.1, PC-DOS 3.1

1985 - December MS-DOS 3.2, PC-DOS 3.2

1987 - April MS-DOS 3.3, PC-DOS 3.3

1988 - July/August? PC-DOS 4.0, MS-DOS 4.0

1988 - November MS-DOS 4.01, PC-DOS 4.01

1990 - May 22 Introduction of Windows 3.0for 32 bit applications.

1991 - June MS-DOS 5.0, PC-DOS 5.0

1992 - April Introduction of Windows 3.1

1993 - July 27 Windows NT 3.1

1994 - September 21 Microsoft released Windows NT 3.5.

1995 - August 21 [poss. 23] Windows '95 was launched by Bill Gates & Microsoft.

1996 Windows '95 OSR2 (OEM System Release 2) was released

1996 - July 31 Windows NT 4.0 was released.

1998 - June 25 Microsoft released Windows '98

2000 - Feb 17 Offical Launch of Windows 2000To keep the home market happy Microsoft also released Windows ME, the newest member of the 95/98 series.

2001 - October 25 Microsoft released Windows XP

2006 - Microsoft Vista released.

 

[jerrinfla]

BTW, the source I used to refresh my memory for that list skipped a version that I leapfrogged, but I just remembered that there was also a Windows 98 SE (Second Edition - I don't remember when that came out but I skipped it.)

 

[SPXTrader]

I've never used Winbar before, but it seems to have installed just fine. For the windows version, it says "Unknown (NT Platform)". I'm not sure if it's reporting my memory usage incorrectly, or if I need to adjust the configuration/learn to read it better. It says I'm using 0Mb/2047. (The Windows CPU meter shows I use between 22 & 25% most of the time.)

As for the key, I didn't need one to install. There was an option to put one in, and another option to activate later online (I chose that one.) Just now, under my System Properties, it showed I had 30 days to activate. I copied/pasted one of the keys that Google gave me, and it accepted just fine. From what I've read, the keys are not unique. The five public keys I found are:

6JKV2-QPB8H-RQ893-FW7TM-PBJ73
QXV7B-K78W2-QGPR6-9FWH9-KGMM7
TQ32R-WFBDM-GFHD2-QGVMH-3P9GC
GG4MQ-MGK72-HVXFW-KHCRF-KW6KY
4HJRK-X6Q28-HWRFY-WDYHJ-K8HDH

(not sure if I'm allowed to post those here. Can a mod advise, please?) Those are for the 32 bit version. 64 bit has different keys. Also, these are for build 7000. I'm not sure if they'll work with earlier versions, but keys for those are easy enough to find.

One last thing; you know that the beta version is set to expire sometime around July, right? Definitely keep your current OS available.

Thanks for the reply. Win Bar is a great tool to monitor. I have set it up to show CPU percentage, available RAM, data upload/download activity and speed, HD remaining and battery monitoring. It also provides a clock, volume control and time/day/date, running uptime and a convenient google bar if you want it to. I don't use any of the graphing services it offers. If you mouse up under the RAM, you can click on it and show the task manager. I find it useful, especially now that BFC is experiencing some minor difficulties.

Thanks again for the reply!

 

[ThinkOfTheChildren]

I think the amount of time between the release of XP and the release of Vista was uncommonly long for Microsoft.

True... but I should have articulated that part of my point better. You hit on it yourself actually:

Bear in mind that except for DOS 4 & Windows ME, every release had something of major impact up to XP.

Right, which is mostly what I was trying to communicate here, but perhaps chose words poorly:

Earlier generations of Windows got away with quicker release times because they were so unstable. With the promise of a little more stability, people were willing to upgrade. As you point out though, XP is now stable and people will expect future versions of Windows to be as well. So if Microsoft chooses to introduce BS new versions every two years unnecessarily, people will catch on quickly and leapfrog, rendering entire generations worthless.

I shouldn't have just said Windows and I shouldn't have just said stability: but as you and I seem to agree, (most of) their earlier OS upgrades really did offer something of value to the consumer.

However, eventually when motherboards increase the amount of ram they can use and programmers pump up their programs enough to require more than 4GB of ram, you're gonna have to leave XP behind anyway.

No doubt about it. I don't think anyone is arguing that XP will last forever. I'd love something better. But as you and I agree: whatever comes must really be better and "worth it."

And if MoBo's and programs chug along faster than a single OS can deal with, then your prediction of new OS's every 2 years again could certainly come true, but I think people also have higher expectations these days. They're going to want to know why Windows 8 or Windows 9 (or whatever) isn't built to handle the future instead of just the present.

...Or maybe I'm giving consumers too much credit.

 

[ThinkOfTheChildren]

From what I've read, the keys are not unique. The five public keys I found are... ...(not sure if I'm allowed to post those here. Can a mod advise, please?) Those are for the 32 bit version.

I downloaded the 32-bit from Microsoft for use on a random laptop and can confirm that they gave me one of those 5 keys.

I don't think you're doing anything wrong by posting them: the Beta is free to the public and the keys are handed out. You're not giving anyone free access to something that costs any money. But I'm no mod...

 

[jerrinfla]

Everything. Every feature is just that, a feature. something that goes well on a sale flyer. My buddy bought his first comp ever (he's 34) arguably right in the "Vista Target" market. its caused nothing but problems. Vista tried to be all things to all people, and failed. It was marketed well before it was ready, and as such most "vista ready" machines can't handle it because it moved past them in the bloating that was its development. and it is only superficially user friendly. I spent over an hour trying to pull files over our LAN from my XP machine with no avail. And to top it off, it cannot read a .AVI file. all I can say to that is Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

Bear in mind that while .AVI seems like a file type, it really isn't. It's just a container, and the contents can be any one of several .MPG file types ar a .DIVX file or an .XVID file. Vista can play more types of video files without 3rd party decoders than XP can. As far as pulling files from your XP machine, I suppose you have file sharing turned on, right? You might try running file sharing again after connecting the Vista box and then restarting everything. If file sharing is turned on, it might just be a matter of your Vista box and your XP box each being configured to use a different workgroup by default. I'm not sure what kind of koolaid Microsoft project managers drink, but home networking seems to have gotten more difficult each step of the way from Windows for Workgroups 3.11 to Vista, even though there is less for the user to manually configure. It would also be mighty nice for Microsoft to leave the way to access the settings the same from version to version. I guess they just like to build cottage industries of 800 page books of "How To <whatever> with Windows <current version>". I'll tell you, after a few years of configuring DB4 compatible databases I nearly went into catatonic shock when Microsoft released their Access database.

 

[TLR]

Vista is the entire reason that I switched to a mac. XP wasn't bad at all and honestly by the time Vista came out it was a pretty solid platform.
The only OS that even comes close to the abysmal quality of Vista was ME, also a complete money making scheme.
I'm not sure why anyone is suprised however. When you run a company the size of Microsoft and develop an OS with hundreds, if not thousands, of different components built by developers who only work on their piece of the puzzle without collaboration until just before rollout... What do you expect?
For the record XP was great and Outlook is much better then anything else I have found. With that said, and keeping in mind that I am far from a Mac geek, the Mac OS is so far superior it is ridiculous.
I doubt Microsoft will ever get me back.

 

[joe-bob]

My PC has XPpro, and my laptop has Vista. Both are screwed up, and can't even run most of the applications they came with.

 

[bulgron]

Vista? XP? OS X? Linux? Nuts to 'em all. I haven't seen a good operating system since VAX/VMS.

 

[mycroftt]

The biggest and the best (Vista, Walmart, etc.) will always attract whiners, but the the only real prob that Vista has is that its a RAM hog. If you have at least 2mb of RAM, and preferably 4 or 6, you are good to go. Just sitting there doing nothing, Vista eats 1mb of RAM.

Just as you have already proven to yourself.


:thumbup:

Yeah, I'm RAM fat and I don't have any problems running Vista, but, being a resource hog, it could slow down a locomotive screaming down the track. those statements in the original post are marketing statements intended to make people buy Windows 7 (everybody already knew that, right?). One of our IT techs keeps challenging me to install windows 3.1 - he claims I will never, ever, even see an hourglass!

 

[mycroftt]

Vista? XP? OS X? Linux? Nuts to 'em all. I haven't seen a good operating system since VAX/VMS.

I agree but OS/2 used virtual address extension too. I was an enormous proponent of VAX/VMS and used to manage a nationwide software system running on a network of up to 115 VAXEN in 85 locations around the country. I maintained 100% availability for nearly 15 years - a record I challenge anyone in the world to rival on a network of this magnitude, running software of this complexity (even though it was VAX COBOL).

By the year 2000 I replaced it with a single cluster of DEC ALPHAs, did the biggest data integration the world had ever seen (from VAX RMS to Oracle - the only time this has been done successfully AFAIK), and was replaced by about 60 government contractors, a.k.a. The UNIX Boys, after managing nearly a trillion dollars (which we immediately hid and converted to government "trust accounts"). A trillion dollars was "real money" in those days.

Some gratitude from the federal gvernment, eh?

My 15 year record of availability lasted less than 2 days after those clowns took over. You couldn't pay me enough to fix the clusterfart they created - well, actually, the taxpayer paid them about $100M to blow that build so maybe you could pay me enough to clean their Augean stable, but I'm not sure I really have another sandcastle build in me. I really want to retire and get a part-time job as a green-grocer and do volunteer work at our local hospital.