Windows Vista: The Best Case for Windows XP Ever

Rae,

As has already been mentioned by more than one poster, the "article" is little more than an anti-Vista rant, and a lot of what it asserts does not line up with real world experience.

I described my Vista experience, which is rather different than that of the author of the article.

 

There aren't always two sides to every story. Sometimes a turd is just a turd. While you may have had a good experience, a substantial number of reviews have cropped up with the same issues.

In every case, some people will have problems with an OS and some people will have things go smoothly. For example, it's not shocking that your install went ok, it's unthinkable that 100.0% of users who installed it would have had problems. If only say 70% of users have problems that is still a big deal. The things in this review let you know of things that can happen, and, for a lot of people, do happen.

So I appreciate your attempt to voice an alternate view, but I have my own experiences, which more or less dovetail with the writer of the article. I'm an ex-programmer, and for five years worth of work by one of the world's largest companies, Vista is a disgrace.

But that's just my opinion. I'll allow you to have a different one

 

I for one have NEVER purchased restricted lower quality music paying 99c. I instead buy from the sites that sell mp3s. Its a moral issue and if all of us do the same, iTunes and others that sell restricted music will loose so much business that they will come in line.

Anyway, I doubt the change will ever come from Microsoft, it will come from Apple and Microsoft will follow like a transfixed child.

 

Texas Instruments

HP's site didn't have a driver up, so that means either (1) Vista has the driver already or (2) HP hasn't made a driver yet.

UPDATE: TV Tuner's drivers are out of Beta now, and it's been confirmed that Vista's MCE recognizes the HVR950 out of the box. I'll know that for myself in a few hours.

 

There are many good points in the article and also comments from people that did not had any big issues with Vista.

But I noticed so many emotions in the article and some of the comments. If you don't like the product, then why to bother so much? Just don’t by the product.

Other points.

Trusted platform chips. My R40 had it already. This means this chip was already here at least 3 years ago. This chip is (at least was) not for home user, but for business customers.
BTW. Media player has unique ID, unless you have removed it.
BTW2. If someone does not like to be identified, you have freedom not to buy the product, why you still use it (of cause there are some who don't).

Encryption of disks. This also comes from business people and government. There are too many notebooks, that are stolen and some of them might contain information about you (government notebooks).

In general I heard that government this time was pressing Microsoft to make OS more secure. Can you tell how many PC-s there are with Windows in government and business environment. What if you would make a directed attack as a terrorist? Have you ever wondered what you could achieve? There are already enough stories with viruses. BTW. A funny point. I saw windows running on a navigation PC in one of the military ships (ship belonged to Portugal). You would be surprised where you can find windows or... scared.

So, the most of the changes are designed for business people and government. Home users get that as bonus (almost ), but it is not directly designed for them. Home users get the shiny GUI.

Well, windows was still reworked a lot inside. The driver framework was updated (new WDF framework). Now it is easier to write drivers (I wrote my first driver quite easy, I doubt if it would be so easy with WDM). But I already saw beginnings of some changes in XP. For example audio stack (or part of it) was already a service since some version of XP (most of audio stack is not part of kernel in Vista). There might be more, that is not visible to the user. In XP they still had support for win 3.1 interfaces!

I like somebody’s point about apps. In fact many today’s problems are caused by apps leaking resources. I could notice that some applications leak a lot if you suspend the notebook and others - don't. Normally I can use my XP for a weak or more, without need for it to be restarted. But with some applications I need to restart it quite often. BTW my XP was installed already more than two years ago. No big troubles. Rule of thumb: don't browse porno, don't brows crack pages and don't install "super utilities", "system enhancers" etc.

The same could be said about applications that require admin rights, when they do not need that, just because before nobody thought about that.

I agree with people who say that is not THE CHANGE, this is just another natural change. I remember also first negative impressions with other new things e.g. why do we need this PCI Express!? PCI works fine!

I don't defend Windows, I just don't like one sided stories or when facts are mixed up with feelings. Don't like the product - don't use it. Period. There is no perfect product for everybody.

P.S. Sorry for my English

 

True.

DRM is the scourge of the music world, but I am a firm believer that if you want music, you should buy CDs. Then you can rip them to your hard drive.

 

Wow, I'm really impressed by the response my article has gotten. I'd like to make a couple quick points:

1. DRM would exist even if piracy was at a minimum. I guarantee it. DRM has nothing to do with controlling piracy and everything to do with controlling distribution, and it exists for the same reason DVDs have region codes and Macromedia "protection": artificial limitations to control the way you shop and what you do with what you buy. You're not supposed to be able to copy CDs and DVDs not just for piracy reasons, but because if your disc gets scratched/messed up, you'll have to buy another one.

2. I apologize if my editorial seemed too...passionate, I guess? But please understand where I'm coming from with the style of writing; I'm not just writing to educate, I'm also writing to share my experiences in a way that communicates my thoughts and feelings in an entertaining and engaging way. These are things that genuinely pissed me off with getting it running and I see no reason why I should be toning down how frustrated I really felt with it in my editorial. Windows Vista nearly cost me a midterm because it wasn't stable and couldn't hold a connection.

3. One of the posters mentioned that his opinion of this site had been somewhat damaged by my editorial, and I'm genuinely sorry to hear that. I'm very proud to have the opportunity to write for what is, in my opinion, one of the most honest tech sites on the internet. We're fortunate to have much more mature, thoughtful forum-goers than any other tech site I've seen. And because the majority of reviews are written by you, the consumers, there's an innate guarantee of their integrity. If my editorial has seriously offended anyone and damaged their experience of this site, all I can say is that it's their loss. Good luck finding a better, more honest community.

4. I don't hate change. But hiding the menu bar, for example, was an asinine decision. Joe Sixpack hates change. He just wants his computer to WORK. He doesn't want to have to relearn his operating system. When a change is made to the operating system, it needs not to just be a better way to do things in theory; it needs to be so intuitive that it overrides the "learned intuition" of the way things already work. It needs to make more sense to them. So just moving something because theoretically it's better doesn't always work out in practice.

5. I've taken notice of how much better Vista does handle RAM and multi-tasking; it was notably smoother in the RTM and Beta versions I used. The flipside is that, well, XP also works fine for me, and it runs everything I want it to run, and runs them well. The same can't be said of Vista.

6. I suspect a large part of the reason manufacturers are in a rush to get working drivers out is because Microsoft was coding this SOB pretty much up to the wire before it was finally shoved off into stores, and I've been playing with it long enough to experience it. There were new builds being released as late as November. I let the manufacturers off the hook because they're only able to work with what Microsoft gives them.

7. We've all been griping about XP for a long time, and I guess we needed Vista to realize just how good we had it. Understand that Microsoft Windows is a monopoly. I don't really have much of a choice if I want to play computer games and do video editing in the same OS. And I suffer such hardcore vendor lock-in with all the software I've accrued over time, I can't really afford to make a transition. I suspect a lot of people are in my boat.

8. A large amount of Windows XP's security problems are PEBKACs. If you compute smart (and remember to check out that article I wrote about it linked to in this article), your problems will be rarefied at worst. I run Firefox and use Norton Antivirus. I don't open questionable software. I don't have problems with my system. 99% of the battle is not using Internet Explorer.

9. The transition between 32-bit and 64-bit computing was seamless on the Mac and it's my understanding Linux is no different. On the Windows platform, it's a nightmare. And you can say, "Well the manufacturers are putting 32-bit Vista on their 64-bit hardware" and cite that as the problem, but I think you're missing the point. The manufacturer can't in good conscience put 64-bit Vista on their hardware knowing the compatibility problems it has. They're avoiding doing Microsoft's tech support. They're going to put 32-bit Vista on their systems regardless, because it's the one that "works."

 

Sorry, I missed the point about midterm.
But in general this has nothing to do with Vista dirrectly.

This has to do with these rules of life (verified the hard way):
Don't touch a running system.
Don't make major changes if you in a middle of something very important (unless it is unavoidable).

You can say that there are products, which are not affected by these rules. Yes, but how much you are willing to try luck if you have something important to loose?

Several of my friends were caught on these (and me too to some degree ), because some wonted the newest stuff, some - the coolest, and so on, while all of them were in middle off something important.

Let the others to test the maturity of the products ;P

 

No, Vista has not been rewritten. Far from it.

That may have been the intention 6 years ago when they started out. But the end result is little more than a polished version of XP.
As someone said previously, they spent 3 years developing a new codebase from scratch, scrapped it, and switched to working on polishing the XP one for the remaining two years.
That is not a total rewrite. It is the total opposite. it is simply gluing yet another layer on top of XP, and slightly rewriting some of the more critical internals of XP. As for the much-vaunted "security", try using IE7 for a few hours, then go take a look in your registry. It does *not* stay restricted to writing into the "low security" areas of the registry, despite Microsoft's claims.

Oh, how so? Which particular addons and upgrades are we talking about here?
Vista is as much a monolithic system as every past version of Windows.

So you're saying that everyone who runs into problems with UAC must be pirates? I find that more than a bit insulting.
And yes, I also keep my software up to date. UAC is still a badly implemented pest.
In fact, I could live with the constant security prompts (which, by themselves, are still a good source of criticism because of how and when they appear, and what they do for "security", but my main issue with it is that... I was forced to turn it off entirely. Because otherwise Windows refused to load the programs I specified at startup. That's a showstopper to me. If I say I want to load Hamachi at boot, then it's because I want it to run. Yes, it requires admin privileges, and yes, that's a bad thing, but then let me specify a whitelist of software that should be started anyway, and keep UAC on.
That is not possible. The only "workaround" is to... disable UAC entirely. Giving users that kind of choice (disable security system-wide, or stop using the programs you want to use) is *not* the way to improve security, because it's not very difficult to see what people will choose.

No, it is being drivven precisely by a scheme to deprive people of the freedom to use their own property. The music industry would just love if you had to buy a new copy of a cd for each computer and each cd player you use it on. And if one of your copies break? They'd just love to sell you a new one, rather than letting you take backups.
The "theft" thing (piracy is not technically speaking theft in the first place) is a handy excuse, and yes, it also factors in, but it is by no means the main reason for DRM. That is, quite simply, that the content providers have found an opportunity to exercise more control over the products they sell to customers, which can be used to force people to buy the product multiple times, where they'd otherwise simply use backups of the one copy they bought.

As far as I know, the situation isn't quite as good with Linux. The entire OS was designed around the assumption that you run on one, and only one architecture. Unlike Windows (Windows on Windows, aka WOW) and Mac (Rosetta and other emulation software), they don't already have an emulation infrastructure to provide support for legacy apps (because backwards compatibility has never before been a major concern in Linux).
There are still things that work pretty well with 64-bit Linux, but it's not a smooth ride either.
That's one of the few things where Apple has indisputably done the right thing, and done it well.

 

your article makes you seem like you're a mac fanboy trying to disguise a windows bashfest as an unbiased editorial

you have some valid points.. however, some of your complaints are not IMO. correct me if i'm wrong, but:
1. you do know you press alt and the traditional menu pops up right?
2. uac can be turned off easily
3. i have not had any driver problems or crashes with either of the 2 pc's i installed vista on (since the beginning of february)
4. at this point DRM is mostly a non-issue.. HDCP compliance has not been implimented (and for me personally, i'm not interested in watching hd movies on my pc, and if it comes down to it, i'm sure i can find a way around the drm protections)
5. yeah the 56203495834 different versions of vista is confusing and i'll admit it's a stupid idea. however, it really isn't that difficult to figure out which version you need (it's pretty easy to find a table comparing the features online), especially since the most basic, uneducated computer users won't be upgrading windows on their own anyways.

 

I doubt that's an issue. It's pretty much the same situation at our CS department, and we've got Vista licenses through MSDNAA already.

Do you really need to ask? If you'd read the start of the thread, you'd see the answer: Since we tried Vista.

In fact, that is one of the main points of the editorial/rant. XP might have its problems, but Vista is, to quote the topic, "the best case for XP ever".
I think that answers your question.

I don't remember that. I remember XP getting pretty good reviews. Of course people were worried about the more graphically intensive UI, and some people preferred 2k, but a lot of people liked XP from day one. And more importantly, few people tried XP, and then went back to older OS'es.

Yes. And I still hear those complaints. That can be customized or disabled entirely though, and is in any case, the most superficial aspect of XP.

I'm sorry, do you have a point?
XP has had its share of problems. A lot of them have been fixed ,but it is still far from perfect. And so what?

Again, the point of the original post, which you don't seem to have read, is *not* to say that XP is perfect, but simply to say that Vista is worse, and only makes XP look better in comparison. So far, you have not disputed this, only provided examples of the problems XP had 4 years ago. Hardly relevant to today's situation, I think.

Oh yes, because we're all three year olds who don't know how to turn a computer on. Thank you for that comment.

Yes, i remember 98. As well as 98 SE. As well as 95. And 3.11 and 3.1 and Dos 6.0, 5.0 and 3.0.

And again, do you have a point? Or are you only trying to confuse the matter with stories of your traumatizing childhood having to walk 20 miles uphill in a snowstorm? Yes, I'm sure that unlike us 5-year olds, you've fought in 'nam armed only with a floppy containing DOS 2.0, and I still don't care, it is still not relevant to a discussion of whether or not Vista is worth using over XP.

So by your own logic, we also shouldn't use Vista until SP2. Thank you, and I agree.

Oh, or you mean Vista is different? You are trying to say that with all previous OS'es, the initial release was a disaster that should be avoided, but with Vista, the initial release is a disaster that... uh, should be installed asap to replace XP, which, as you say, is finally more or less straightened out?

So we'll have gone from a stable OS to... uh, an OS that will become equally stable in 3 months? Gee, what a bargain. Why not just stay with XP which is *also* stable then?

Hopefully you're right. But is that an argument for upgrading to Vista *now*? To me it sounds more like a stellar reason to wait for SP1.

Since you like historical comparison so much, Vista is the first OS ever which I have installed and downgraded again afterwards.
Yes, Windows 95 had an awful lot of problems. But once installed, I didn't get rid of it again, because it was actually useful, and despite its flaws, it did *some* things better than DOS. I kept a DOS installation around for the next 5 years or so for games, but I kept 95 as well. When 98 came out, I ditched 95 and upgraded to something that out of the box, from day one, was noticeably better and more stable than 95. Then on to SE, which again was a definite improvements over 98. No previous OS has frustrated me so much that I've been forced to downgrade. Only Vista has managed that.

 

By that logic, why not just stay with XP for the rest of your life? It's probably never going to be any less stable than it is rght now.

You know, I was cleaning out an old computer the other day that had 98 SE, and I was amazed at how well it was still working. It was much more stable than my oldest XP laptop. Does that mean I should use it?

 

The UAC is great in my opinion .....OK, sometimes you might have to click 2-4 times to get something done. But how hard is that. Have we become so lazy that we want to sacrifice good security just to not click the OK/Yes button. It really helps keep the registry clean, keep unwanted files from being created, and keeps me for making a mistake and downloading a toolbar or other app/malware when I forget to uncheck the box or choose custom install when downloading a program. I rather have the UAC instead of using ADWATCH (from AdAware) or using SPYBOT resident and locking IE settings.

Yes the menu structure is a bit differ than XP and previous windows, but I like the fact that some of my folders are not in the documents folder. Like the Pictures folder.

As being a Windows User most of my life, I'm not used to having the start/menu bar on top. So that argument doesn't affect me or most people.

I never had problems at all downloading Gadgets on the Sidebar or using most Gadgets. Ofcourse I haven't tried ALL the Gadgets yet, but ALL Gadget programs (ie: Yahoo) have some Buggy, crappy or Outdated Gadgets. I've tried over 25+ Gadget and only had a problem with two or three. The Sidebar has been a GREAT experience for me. I personally don't want to boot up without it, which is why I have it installed on XP too.

The Desktop search is Great.

So is the fact that the start menu does not expand. I finally got used to it, and now hate dealing with expanding start menu on XP. I like to search for everything in one place and not have to scan my eyes all over the screen.

The DRIVER ISSUE is defiantly something we all can agree on, but it seems like Drivers are being UPDATED very rapidly and is actually catching up to put this issue to rest.

Yes Vista does look lame without AERO, but you can easily change themes and color shemes if you can't or don't have aero option. XP looks even more lame when compared to Vista with aero.

As Far as Running Vista on my 2GB machine, Works very smooth and quickly.
I can't speak for any PC with differ specs lower than Mutli core & 2GB.
But I can say that my Graphics card is crap and aero runs just fine without any heat, fan or mem problems.

To compare Vista to OS-X ......I truly can't call it as I never had a Mac.

But to compare Vista to XP .....Vista is the clear winner IMO.

 

This is getting a bit ridiculous. There are things going on here that for some reason people don't want to see, and it saddens me.

I can look back over my posts from the past several months, and I'll see a lot of posts back from when I was beta-testing Windows Vista. And guess what? There was a lot of praise from me. I went on and on about how it seemed to be pretty stable, it was pretty quick (despite using nearly 5 times the system resources), it was pretty secure, and it was pretty... well, pretty. But all of these things were taken in the context of a BETA OPERATING SYSTEM. And RC1 was, by beta testing standards, a fairly good beta. The problem is that 5 months and countless builds later, it is still in the same condition. What was good for a beta OS is NOT good for a released OS. At the time, I was having problems with Media Center crashing, no games I installed would play, I would often have errors and random program crashes, the OS would suddenly jump out of Aero for certain programs (rather than just skin that particular program in a legacy UI like previous Windows versions), and the system resources were huge. But I insisted that Windows Vista would not fail because these things would be fixed by release; I was wrong.

And this is where Vista fails. It's not that Vista doesn't have the potential to be a stable and fulfilling OS; indeed it brings many things to Windows that have been sorely lacking for years. The problem is that it fails to address the MAJOR issues of Windows, presents many changes that, while I was able to see past, will completely jar the average user, and it took 6 YEARS. None of the major plans for Vista made it to RTM, including WinFS, redesigned kernel, and solid 64-bit support just to name a few. So now I'm left to look at it and wonder what the heck they were doing for 6 years.

As far as DRM goes, I wholeheartedly agree with Jalf here. The movie and music industry IS out to control our media, and its wrong. Now I'll admit that they may be motivated in some way by piracy, and that's fine to be upset about that. But that doesn't give them the right to punish the average consumer. You don't lock a whole city out of their bank because a couple of residents robbed the bank do you? No. You find the thieves and you move on. The problem is that the movie and music industry is less concerned with finding the actual criminals than they are with treating everyone as a criminal. Think back to the Valve Software incident a few years ago when they were still working on Half Life 2. The source code for the game was stolen from their networks and distributed on the Internet. But did they go on a crusade to initiate some kind of crazy DRM to their games and lock the source code (thus preventing the countless Source mods out there)? No. Instead, they called the FBI, and went to the gaming community, and said, "Hey, our code has been stolen. We don't want you to see it until the final game is released, so if you can help us find who stole it, we'll reward you." A few months later the code was retrieved and the hacker was arrested in Germany; an unprecedented display of anti-piracy that ACTUALLY WORKED. The problem with the movie and music industry's DRM is that there will always be someone smarter than them to break their DRM, but if they keep trying to tighten it, we'll get to the point where software freedom will be but a distant memory.

But back to Vista, I find it ridiculous that Microsoft had the gall to send this out in this state, and yet people are still defending it. You know what I find really funny? I can go download a copy of Ubuntu Linux (for free as in money and speech), install it on my computer, and I might have to install three packages to get it to completely work (network software, graphics drivers, and maybe something else). This is with a community-driven non-profit Operating System with nowhere near the level of commercial and technical support as Microsoft. On top of that, Ubuntu will be more secure, more stable, and in many cases, easier to use. And it doesn't take them 6 years to do release a major update, it takes 1. How can you defend Microsoft when you look at something like that?

/my .02

 

I try not to get that Deep in comparing ........

Open vs Closed Source
and Price

If I like something and it works the way I want it to, thats how I determine my Judgment on it.

I don't think Vista is a HUGE OS upgrade compared going from 95/ME to XP.
But it's a Very good improvement.



Speaking of Linux ........
It is much harder of me to configure than Windows,
It is much more unstable for me than XP or Vista,
AND It is just not compatible with enough programs and everyday use for my taste at the moment.

Maybe its me not being completely experience yet in Linux, but the time frame I been using Linux ......an inexperience user would have got the hang of Windows already.

I like Linux (especially Ubuntu) and use it, but to say it's easy for the average user or non tech savy person is not true IMO.

 

I came up with the best comparison yet, better than equating Vista to WinME. Have you heard of or remember the Coca Cola thing a few decades ago when they came out with "New Coke" to combat Pepsi's attacks? (What happened is Coke conducted testing and determined that people liked a new formula better than their old formula. So they rolled out this new formula in place of the old stuff and people threw a fit and went crazy trying to get their hands on the old formula. The company ended up shooting themselves in the foot but recovered a bit after releasing "Classic Coke" which was the original formula and not the new stuff.) Microsoft is acting exactly like Coca Cola. Vista is "New Coke". What they've done is removed a lot of the things we're familiar with and replaced them with other stuff that is promised to be better but doesn't quite pan out that way for everyone. All the UI changes (particularly the menu bars), UAC, authentification, etc. are perfect examples. They've changed the old formula for Windows and replaced it with something new but sort of similar. Rejection and negative reaction from people like myself and the original poster is to be expected and also does not automatically make us fanboys of Linux, Mac, etc. I know that when I personally need something to work I turn to my WinXP system right now before I turn to Linux (which is before I turn to Mac too). People still have the ability to choose the "old formula" of Windows but it's becomming more and more restricted or expensive since it's no longer and option in a new system in most places you can buy from as a home user. It's pretty much forced upon you by Microsoft because of their distribution arrangements and new things like DirectX10. This is the core problem.

Vista feels like an expansion pack to WinXP just like an EA game thrown out the door right before Christmas whether or not it's actually finished. The majority of people were expecting something equivalent to the changes made between the different iterations of the Unreal Engine, not those like an annual sports game. Unfortunately, after 5 years of waiting we got the sports game instead of the new engine. Disappointment and anger is not to be unexpected.

 

Jalf, go read any real analysis of Vista. Contrary to your assertions, it IS a major rewrite, it HAS been componentized and it DOES have a totally new security model.

They did scrap a previous codebase and start again at one point; that is a large part of why it took so long. But they did NOT simply gloss over the old XP codebase. Here is just one of many articles explaining this:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_08.asp

As to UAC, why would my statement that I am using modern commercial apps and thus not getting UACed as much make you think I am calling you a pirate? Did you actually read what I wrote?

UAC goes off when applications try to do things requiring full admin privileges. Inherently this is going to happen more frequently on older and non commerical applications simply because they are less likely to be coded not to ask for admin rights to function. It has nothing to do with piracy.

This statement is flat out paranoid, and in fact is exactly the kind of conspiracy theory nonsense that has infected the internet. If you but a CD at a music store and it breaks, am I to assume you think you should be able to walk into that music store and have them hand you a free new one? And in this case it would effectively be with no proof the original is really broken?

Like the review that prompted this thread, it's all a lot of ABM FUD.

 

After all, America has proven time and time again that corporations only have your best interests at heart.

Should you have the music store hand you a new one? No. But that's not what we're suggesting. Copy-protection prevents you from making your own back-up. They'd much rather sell you a new one than let you back it up for safekeeping. If you really believe the piracy line the *AAs keep feeding you, you deserve to have your fair use rights systematically stripped away.

When I buy something, I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with it, within reason. But when I bought an album off iTunes, and then reformatted my hard disk, the music was marooned on my iPod. I shouldn't even have to go through iTunes to get the music back, and the reason for that is exactly what happened: iTunes refused to give it back to me. It just plain wouldn't work. It wouldn't transfer the files off the iPod even though a direct connection to the iTunes Store (complete with login/pw) tells it I've bought the music.

If you think my review is FUD, you're certainly entitled to believe that, but what I was trying to communicate was largely the frustration I experienced using Vista as an experienced, computer-savvy user. What the heck is Joe Sixpack going to do when he's faced with problems like those? My dad had me to call to track down Vista drivers for the sound processor on his motherboard; his motherboard that was less than a year old. Who is the average user going to have? Should it be up to the informed family members/friends of EVERY USER to help these people make Microsoft's forced transition?

You and I know what we're doing with our computers, but we're an incredibly small minority. My point in this review was that if I was getting irritated with Vista, imagine how the casual user is going to feel?

 

Think of the issue this way. What if you could not drive your car to a different state simply because you did not pay the road tax that state charges for gas to maintain their highway system?

That is no different then the music people trying to restrict where and how you use the license you pay for with the implication that it is yours to use as you please? If this mattered so much then where were the DRM people when audio tape and home tape recorders were introduced? I really believe that because the industry failed to diligently pursue the issue a that time, they basically agreed to end users having the permission to use the content as they wanted for their own personal use. Heck they even bought the tape media from the same company who sold blanks to the public and advertised the quality of the music you could record on the blanks...and they were not talking about recoding the church choir.

It also is not like the artists are the ones getting the HUGE profits...it's the what? Slimey corporate talking heads riding their coat-tails who reap the cash.

And I am a guy who has ZERO interest in music. I never download it and hardly ever tune into the radio...because it is all the same anymore. I still feel this is an issue far larger then simply the music industry. Just consider the simple example I opened with...it's really not any different. This is an issue about personal freedoms and property rights. Anymore we have ever decreasing amounts of either in the US.

 

Actually it is different.

If you buy music online legitimately part of it is a license agreement (you know, the one most people just agree to without reading) that stipulates the usage rights you are buying. One of those stipulations does prohibit your making copies to distribute either for $$$ or not.

So, if you do buy than start "sharing" it you are violating the license you agreed to.

All DRM really boils down to is trying to tie the purchased item to the purchaser in the case of licensed items (because it makes no sense to do so otherwise). It's a situation that really has no precedent because we are dealing with salable items that, at their core, have no obvious physicality (like a CD or a record or a book). And ultimately this is the area that needs some thought (and possibly laws), because right now there are issues.

 

No one is saying that you should be able to distribute for free what you had to pay for. What you should be able to do is make a backup copy, or only use copies of the cd while retaining the cd somewhere safe (in case of accident) or have one copy for each car and the house without buying 3-4 copies, that was the point of fair use.

When you buy a song or album from the iTunes store you SHOULD have roughly the same rights, but you don't. You can't play the song on anything but an iPod, you can't save it on more than 3 computers, etc.

Secondly, as far as WGA and MS I think the whole thing is just plain silly. First of all software piracy is absolutely key to MS being able to maintain their desktop monopoly. If people that can't afford windows couldn't steal it they would have to find something else that works for them. MS is able to maintain their dominant market position because vast chunks of the developing world steal their software. These are people who are never going to shell out $250 or so for a copy of Vista, but will be able to buy it and use it for .50 from their friendly local pirate.

The only not silly thing about the whole issue is that MS has actually hurt lots of paying customers due to their shoddy implementation. I'm not saying that software piracy is ok, or legal, or that IP is stealing, but it also isn't the giant bugaboo that the BSA would have you believe.

That is at least twice as true for the music and video industries. Both of these groups are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to an outdated business and distribution model because it lets them fix prices and basically extort consumers. Their end goal is to ensure that no one in this country will be able to buy blank media or content without them getting their cut.

 

I used the Home Premium RTM version, and then used Business edition for two weeks each as my primary OS, so I am speaking from true experience here.

I'll agree with you here that UAC is a much needed improvment. About ten years over due, but anyways. It does need some tweaking though.

Unfortumately, I can't agree with you here. On a system with 1GB of ram, I would not expect a game like Company of Heroes requiring my OS to start writing to the page file, but Vista did, after using 650MB of ram on boot. XP did not, and graphics driver issues aside, my hard drive performance was better.

I won't bash Aero for not being nice, it is. I'll bash it for it's horrid performance. It will refuse to even run on a Radeon 9100IGP, despite the card having the power to run better and more complex, effects using Beryl, on a GNU/Linux system. This can only bring me to one of two conclusions:

1) Microsoft's Programmers are very poor at optimisation, and are being outdone by volunteers. (This happens a lot, but it's forgivable.)
2) Microsoft want you to pay for new hardware. I don't know if they have some agreements with hardware manufacturers, but even if they don't, I want my OS to run on my hardware to a reasonable effect. It's unforgivable for my software to demand greater hardware, despite existing hardware's adequate competency levels.

You'd be defragging daily then.

Please, I invite you to do so. Constructive criticism is a valuable guide on the road to improvement. More feedback from less technically-savvy users is always appreciated.

If you post it up in the Linux/Unix section, the regulars there will offer their advice, to hopefully assist you in your adventures into the land of freedom.

But, on the same note, if someone were to come along and call any editorials you wrote on your experience FUD, please don't take it to heart. There will always be fanboys, who are not willing to listen to other's criticism's of their chosen idol. *Wink wink*

Does the fact that some one shares an experience/opinion that goes against your offend you?

First of all, thank you for writing such an interesting, well structured, researched and generally good article. It's plainly clear that a lot of sweat (possibly blood, and obvious more than a few tears) went into it's creation.

I really don't know about the implications for Joe Sixpack, but I do know that it's more mousework for me, which is bad.

Agreed, the driver writers really were working to tight deadlines. I'm actually surprised that the drivers in Vista work as well as they do, all things considering.

Aye, a lot of people are. I was until just recently, in fact. The good news is that alternative solutions are emerging. Hopefully over the next five years we will see consumers given proper choice.

+1. I ran Windows XP SP2 twelve months straight with no MAJOR issues. And this is without AV software installed. I did get some nasty ware at one stage however, thanks to our good old friend, IE6.

Unfortunately, there are issues that arise with running 64 bit applications on Linux. It's not a matter of stability though, it's entirely due to third party support. Flash and Java are prime examples of rough ground for 64 bit GNU/Linux.

Quoted for absolute truth.

 

I red some post here with a surprise. I DID NOT have any problem with version Vista that i use (Business) in my Thinkpad Z61m. From the installation and 3 weeks using it, i found it is as stable and as fast (some programs actually launch FASTER) as XP. I use Radeon X1400 and Core Duo machine. Start up is faster than XP on my 2GB system.

I really like Aero interface. Some might think its useless, but to me it is a nice upgrade from old XP interface.

I think, Vista transition from XP is a lot smoother than it was from 98 to XP- at least to my own experience. Back then, i always have issues in XP. I was prepared from any glitches when change my OS from XP pro to Vista, but everything turn out to be stable and run nicely.

I dont know, maybe i just a few people here who actually satisfied with Vista new approach, at least for this time.

 

Hi Lysander,

I was able to find out why your Radeon 9100IGP won't run Aero. Per the ATI/AMD site that IGP is Direct X 8.1 compliant. Aero needs DX 9.0 and above compliant. So it is not a case of bad coding of Aero (the DX9 requirement for Aero has been openly stated by MS for about a year).

I can't comment about Company of Heroes running slowly, as I assume you used a different machine in that case. Did you try to run it more than once? The reason I ask is that Vista uses SuperFetch to preload programs based on your usage., and to dynamically unload them if it needs the RAM. It is possible that you will have programs run slower the first time then faster subsequent times.

Also, I checked my Vista build to see how much RAM it is eating up and compared it to how much OSX eats up when booted. Vista for me is coming in at about 400MB. OSX is coming in at about 300MB (however I also have Word, IE and YIM open on Vista).

 

I'm all for editorials and strong opinions (hey, that's why I read a lot of technology blogs and forums like NBR) but they need to be voiced in the correct way.

I visit this site daily for news and views on the forums, but you stepped over the line when you said "mongoloid inbred cousins" - that's just ignorant and offensive. I agree with some of your points, but you're better than the kind of language above, surely?

 

I often agree with you Jalf, but not on this point. First, please explain why "piracy is not technically speaking theft". I cite Merriam-Webster's definition. I'm not swayed by Wikipedia definitions or the like.

And "the 'theft' thing" is not a handy excuse. It's exactly what motivated DRM. Note that I'm not saying (and did not say) that it's the only reason for DRM. The whole point is that the gray area of "fair use" got out of control. So instead of just sharing your favorite music with a couple of friends, people loaded for free access to millions of people via Limewire, bitTorrent, Napster (originally), etc. Buying copyrighted work does not give you unlimited use of it. At least, under U.S. copyright law. Only fair use.

It's kind of like your iPod. You buy one or get one. You're allowed to use it any way you like, within limits. You can listen to music, watch videos (heck even watch porn, which if you're under 18 is technically illegal), or sell it. You cannot reverse engineer it and begin selling the "iJalf". Without incurring some legal problems.

And, again, I am completely against MS's role in this. They are an OS provider purer and simple. Or should be. They are not in the legal enforcement business, which is what these changes smell like.

Whether the entertainment industry is trying to use DRM to extend their reach is a completely different issue. And one that doesn't relate to this Vista review.

 

By the way, I just did some research to find out exactly what Vista has for DRM. According to multiple sources, it has the features required for HDCP (required by Intel for one) and it has the same DRM stuff in Media Player it has had for years now. Some people have (for whatever reason) misidentified Code Integrity (here is a brief description from ZDNet; hardly a pro MS site):

Code Integrity (CI) protects Windows Vista by verifying that system binaries haven’t been tampered with by malicious code and by ensuring that there are no unsigned drivers running in kernel mode on the system. CI starts as Windows starts up. The boot loader checks the integrity of the kernel, the Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL), and the boot-start drivers. After these binaries have been verified, the system starts and the memory manager calls CI to verify any binaries that are loaded into the kernel’s memory space. The binaries are verified by looking up their signatures in the system catalogs. Aside from the kernel memory space, CI verifies binaries loaded into a protected process and system installed dynamic libraries that implement core cryptographic functions.

In other words, it is anti-hacker technology.

 

Other than being colorful, I'm not sure how this is ignorant or offensive. I know what a mongoloid is, what being inbred is, and what a cousin is, so I'm not getting the ignorant part.

It's a fairly vernacular, humorous way of identifying the unlikable, unwanted, totally undesirable members of a particular product family. If you're going to criticize my article, please criticize it for something other than my choice of words. When people read articles here, they don't just want dry information; they want to be entertained, because it makes it more enjoyable for them to read the article and because it makes the content stick a bit better if they can associate a humorous or positive memory with it.

Ultimately I'm not going to be extra PC just because 0.1% of the site's readership is offended by the term "mongoloid," since I can only assume that's the offending word, unless you feel like I'm being insensitive to America's cross-breeding cousin population, and let's be realistic here...if your family tree doesn't fork, odds are you're probably not going to be bright enough to enjoy this site. (My apologies if I offend the inbreeding technology enthusiast demographic.)

 

Well, first of all, you quoted Paul Thurott, but I'll forgive that one as many people don't realize what a Microsoft fanboy he is. But needless to say, I find it hard to say that Vista is a complete re-write when it is still based off of NT technology that has been used since before Windows 2000 (first residential use) and there's so much legacy crap in there. Go searching around the deeper components of the system and some of this stuff has been around since Windows 95.

I'm not going to argue with this one cause it has some truth to it. Also, UAC is a much needed improvement, but it is poorly implemented. UNIX has been implementing this sort of protection for over a decade in a non-annoying way, so Microsoft has some catching up to do.

I have to say that you are too trusting. Your CD analogy is inherently flawed because nobody is asking for the right to obtain another hard copy of something. It's like a lease. You make copies for yourself for backup, but if you lose the original you don't go ask the leaser for another lease; you have your backup in case something happens. This is not only your right, it is your responsibility.

The problem isn't why Aero won't run on a 9100IGP. The point is, it doesn't run, and there's no reason why it shouldn't. I don't care that it won't run because it requires DX9. I care that it shouldn't require DX9. There is nothing in Aero that convinces me that it should be as much of a hog or require as many features that it does. And if DX8 can't do the stuff that I'm seeing in Aero, then I seriously doubt the abilities of the DirectX API in general, and that is one more reason to support OpenGL. This is just a way of Microsoft to push new hardware and people into upgrading. In a way this is a good thing because sometimes people need a kick in the teeth to upgrade. But at the same time, an upgrade like this is ridiculous. I can understand it not running on a 10 year old computer. But it won't run on my 4 year old computer; that's ridiculous. There are still Pentium II computers running modern Linux distributions, and quite a few that are running Windows XP.

I don't like calling anyone a liar, but I find it really hard to believe that you are running 400MB on startup with Vista. When I installed it all the betas (I'll concede the fact that they are betas) I was running at least 450MB on a fresh install (with Sidebar disabled). A clean install of XP will leave you running over 120MB after all your drivers are installed. So to say that you have 400MB in Vista with Word, IE, and Yahoo is just a little... fishy.

One thing you forgot: TPM. Now, of course, this is something implemented by hardware developers, so I'll give you that. But the fact is that Vista incorporates TPM services into Vista, which can allow your computer to be remotely locked or wiped. Sounds like a good plan if your laptop is stolen. Unfortunately, that's like giving your kid a gun in case someone breaks into your house; I'd much rather just be the one holding the gun rather than give the control to someone that has no business using my gun.

Also, you failed to mention WGA. You're probably going to make the argument that this is also incorporated into XP, but that's not the case. It is currently an optional add-on (I just refused to download it the other day). What happened was that Microsoft initially quietly included as a high-priority security update, but when people discovered it and got pissed, Microsoft was forced to backtrack and offer people the option to download it or not or disable it. Users are not given this option in Vista, and just as in XP, this is going to end up causing more problems for the legitimate uninformed consumers than it is the hackers that will just find a way to get around it every time it's updated.

Paul Thurott (the one you quoted earlier) explains in this article how WGA works and how it attacked him on what he believed was a legitimate copy of Windows XP MCE. Of course at the end he spins it in Microsoft's direction, though he also states "The thing is, I can't imagine I would have installed that software in a virtual machine. It seems like such a waste, since the Product Key for that version could only be activated once, while the versions I get from MSDN can be activated multiple times. But I'm honestly not sure." So the question of whether or not the copy of MCE that he installed really was pirated or not is never really answered; but the article is still an interesting read.

Once again, you are accusing us of piracy. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO "SHARE" OUR MUSIC. We want to back it up in case something happens to the CD (like our little brother colors on it with crayons) that we paid for. I'm not arguing that by doing these things you are violating a license. I'm arguing the basis of the license itself. This is why I don't buy music online; I get CDs that I can back up and copy to any one of the devices that I own as I wish. In the real world, it's always better to have a backup copy, just in case.

I don't understand how you don't see the precedent. U.S. Copyright law section 117 was not only a precedent, it was the final word on software backups. And in it (found here), it allows the copying of computer software under two conditions: 1)the copying is required for the program to work on a machine, and 2) the copy is for archival purposes only. To quote, "...that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."

The problem is that in 1998, the media and software companies pressured Congress into a little something called Digital Millennium Copyright Act. You can read the whole thing here. What this did is basically said that "Okay, we won't touch section 117 (though it does in Title III where it limits part 1), but we want to prevent people from circumventing DRM." That is what limited archival purposes, and before 1998, it was legal. It should also be noted that even according to the DMCA, it is legal to circumvent DRM encryption for the purpose of "encryption research," though the software/media companies uses words like "hackers" and "pirates" quite often to describe those that actually do this. That hardly seems fair.

 

Of course it's bad coding. Or the other reason I mentioned. Half-Life 2 runs on a 9100IGP. Won't run well, but it'll run. It's just poor form for MS to require these sorts of useless hardware upgrades in order to get the minimum out of your PC.

I've only ever used Vista on the one machine, and that is listed in my sig. I'm not sure which programs superfetch liked to think that I wanted to use, but Company of Heroes didn't run any better despite what circumstances I ran it in. Vista took too much RAM for itself and left too little to actual applications.

Have you tweaked or streamlined your Vista install? Because a fresh install of business without Aero enabled used 450MB on boot. Superfetch couldnt have preloaded anything that isnt installed yet.

You say it better than I.

 

I'm not an American mate and the cross-breeding cousins wasn't the offensive part. I don't know if mongoloid means something different in the U.S. but I work with disabled people and hear this word all the time. It's offensive, full stop. This has got nothing to do with intelligence - just decency and class.

 

Sometimes it is funny to read some contradicting ideas in the comments

You want a new OS code, but you want also support of old hardware and old applications (games).
You want new GUI, but nothing should be changed, because you will have to adapt to that

So, MS did the cut in Vista, it stopped supporting some old technologies. Some were since win 3.1 (not the code, but interfaces). The cut is unavoidable anyway IMHO (sooner or later). Nothing was hidden from you. Requirements were know a long time ago. Take it or leave it! Win XP is still supported by MS.

A good source of technical information (and reasons behind some of decisions) is this page: http://channel9.msdn.com . Just it takes many hours to listen to all these interesting talks of engineers.

 

BTW here is not long inerview with UAC developers: http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=255622

 

A document that describes what is new in Vista, describes all features and describes in details what are the differences between different versions of Vista: http://download.microsoft.com/download/c/9/8/c988dce4-1971-4ad4-a1ef-df99e596a4cc/WVPG%20RTM.xps

You can find the xps document reader here: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/viewxps.mspx

 

Thanks Daruis.

I think the most recent series of comments is revealing.

Apparently Aero is defective not because it does not work as advertised but rather because MS didn't code it the way some individuals wanted it coded. In other words, opinion becomes fact.

Whether MS theoretically COULD have coded Aero for DX older than 9.0 is irrelevant. The chose to code to DX9 and higher. While some can make silly conspiracy theory claims as to why, the MUCH more likely reason was the need to stop supporting overly old technologies (and DX 8.1 is pretty old). DX 9 has been around for a while, and it is not unreasonable for MS to require 9 or higher.

I also found the "attack the messenger" approach (slamming Paul Thurotte) funny. I quoted him because it was handy; I could have used other sources.

Regarding UAC, the only way to compare it to Unix would be to write a bunch of Unix apps that constantly want admin rights to operate and then run them. I imagine you'll see the Unix prompt for admin password popping up a fair amount.

 

Yeah, I want a new OS code. It's been the same tech for years and it's time to change. The fact of the matter is, they DIDN'T change the base code, and there is still compatibility problems. It's still Windows NT technology (and in fact the base code comes from Windows Server 2003). You can't say that I need to choose one or the other because I would gladly do so (choosing a new OS base). As bad as Windows ME was, at least it could run Windows 95/98 games. Windows Vista can not only not run those, it can't run brand new Windows XP games. That's ridiculous. And we're not even talking about useful applications, which people are having problems with ranging from Adobe products to free products.

And a new GUI doesn't mean you have to do things haphazardly. What point does removing the up button have? The breadcrumb system? It's good, don't get me wrong. But sometimes I'd just rather click the up button. Getting rid of the menu bar (but not really getting rid of it, just hiding) also doesn't make sense. This was never something that confused the user, it wasn't something that was in the way or took up too much screen real estate. All this is doing now is confusing the user because they can no longer find the menu bar (and most don't know you just have to push Alt like those of us do). You don't hear me complaining about the effects or the revised Start menu, because those were genuinely good additions. I'm complaining about the things that don't make sense.

And I'll reiterate, that Microsoft not supporting old technologies is ridiculous. They're just trying to push their own new API, which is alienating consumers and showing that Microsoft doesn't really care about them. Apple takes great strides in supporting old hardware, and I applaud them for that. They move on with new stuff that won't run on old hardware (like Core Graphics), but they don't instead give you something uglier and more disjointed than what you already have if you can't run those things. That's my problem.

 

You're confusing base code with design. A good part of the base code is indeed NT (or more accurately Windows Server 2003 as you stated). However, the design of the OS is a LOT different. Whether you want to admit it or not, they redid a lot of the system services and rebuilt the OS to make it easier to upgrade and secure.

As to the GUI is is a matter of opinion. I find it easy to use and have no big issues with it. You do; that is your opinion. Just remember that opnion and fact are not the same thing.

I am curious as to all of these new applications Vista supposedly cannot run, as I have not yet encountered any. Is there a list somewhere?

 

And they kept a greater amount of it too. That normally wouldn't be a problem, provided what you kept was awesome in the first place.

I'd advise you to heed your own words. You have been attacking other's opinions in this thread, spewing "Pirates! Fanboys! Burn!"

Acrobat Reader for one.

 

If you are referring to the DRM issue, show me where I called anyone a pirate. I did the opposite, showing that someone was taking my remarks as a piracy accusation when they were not. The closest I came to what you are asserting is stating that the original article reads like an ABM FUD rant, which it does.

The closest I came to "spewing" as you put it was when I made remark that, to me, a lot of the DRM commentary smacks of the fetish of conspiracy theories that have infected the net. I got attacked for making that remark.

As to the OS, you are STILL confusing base code with design. They did keep a lot of Windows Server 2003 base code, but the code is being employed in a different OS architecture.

Acrobat Reader? I am running it flawlessly (I had Reader 7 on one Vista install with no issues at all and now have 8 likewise with no issues at all). I also have Acrobat 7 Professional with runs properly.

 

Acrobat Reader runs fine on my HP w/Vista.

Bill

 

A few last words, and this is my forseeable end since I have no intesrest in creating a huge thread of us arguing on this matter; that's not in the nature of this forum and I have mistakenly fallen into it.

But first off, you're right Joelist, most of this is all just opinion and experiences. But you trying to immediately attack the author by saying (and I quote), "This "article" just caused my formerly high opinion of notebookreviews go crash down quite a bit. In all honesty, it's not an editorial it's an ABM rant that has no place masquerading as an objective review." and then going on to say later "As has already been mentioned by more than one poster, the "article" is little more than an anti-Vista rant, and a lot of what it asserts does not line up with real world experience." I find it a bit hypocritical for you to make these assertions against the author who was not only expressing opinions and discontent but also his real-world experiences and then turn around and say that we are wrong for questioning your experiences and opinions.

Secondly, you can argue that Vista has been rewritten all you want and blame incompatibilities on these, but that just doesn't hold salt with me. Windows 2000 and Windows XP both ushered in a brand new architecture and switched over to Windows NT for the first time rather than a Windows shell over DOS. And despite this, they were still able to keep many games and programs running through compatibility mode, but the ones that weren't were completely understandable as the code base was a HUGE change. Vista may be a different design with many new changes, but at its heart, it is still Windows NT. There is no reason people should not be able to run the amounts of games and programs that won't run. And you can find a list of incompatible programs here. To name a few: DivX converter, WinISO, Symantec Partition Magic 8, AVG Internet suite, ZoneLabs ZoneAlarm, Corel Paint Shop Pro 9 and 10, Microsoft PictureIt! 2001 and 2002, Adobe Encore DVD 2.0, Adobe Premiere 7.0, and this is not even including games, which can currently be excused because of bad drivers. There are also over a hundred more programs there reported to have problems, including Adobe Photoshop (many versions). If you guys aren't having problems, that's great. But some people are, and that's all we're saying.

But as hard as anyone tries, most people will never change their opinions, so this pointless arguing is going nowhere. Vista is out, and it's not going to go back. Those against are trying to educate people on the problems, those that are for it are continuing to praise it; whatever, many people will be forced to use it one way or another.

 

No, what I was opposed to was the author stating opinions as facts.

Also, I never attributed program incompatibility to the redesign. I noted the redesign to counter claims that Vista lacks new architectural features. The incompatible programs are a different issue, and the list is not as bad as you represent it to be.

Either way, you are right in that this is going nowhere.

 

The author was writing an editorial. Perhaps you don't know what this means?

The author clearly stated

in the first lines of his editorial. The OP never claimed that his experiences would be accurate for 100% of users. How in the world can you be against a consumer writing about his thoughts and opinions on a product, especially when they are stated to be opinions (and not facts) from the outset?

 

Pulp i did the same after 48 hours with Vista Ultimate i ran back to XP