Is Windows Vista the #1 Tech Disappointment of 2007?

[Nothinman]

How about a system where bluescreens are more user friendly, windows analyzes the dump itsself and gives some probable causes?

That's extremely difficult because once a kernel-mode driver has crapped itself you have no idea what state the system is in so any data that you analyze is suspect. Even the backtrace, module name, etc are suspect and can't be completely trusted even though they're usually correct. Maybe on reboot they could analyze the dump file for you but not in the STOP itself.

How about something like that beryl thing that linux has? The 3d interface vista has is fine but other options for it would have been nice... like a 3d cube? hmm?

The limitations that MS put on Aero are pretty disappointing, hopefully they'll realize how much they're hurting themselves and change that.

How about updated windows core programs? Paint could use an update, calculator too.

Paint maybe, but what do you want to do with calculator that you can't do now?

Its just... what were they doing for 5 years?

The core changes that had the most affect. Just moving as much of video and sound out of the kernel as possible and creating UAC are huge tasks. Then there was also splitting explorer and the window manager, converting the printing system from GDI to WPF, DirectX 10, enabling and testing address space layout randomization, I/O prioritization, BitLocker and more.

 

[Cutthroat]

How about a system where bluescreens are more user friendly, windows analyzes the dump itsself and gives some probable causes?

Vista can do that. Upon reboot from a BSOD or just after an error Vista will ask if you want to send the info to MS, sometimes it does come back with a possible solution, and I have seen it be correct.

How about updated windows core programs? Paint could use an update, calculator too.

Check out Paint.net, it's a fantastic improvement on Paint.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

How about a system where bluescreens are more user friendly, windows analyzes the dump itsself and gives some probable causes?

That's extremely difficult because once a kernel-mode driver has crapped itself you have no idea what state the system is in so any data that you analyze is suspect. Even the backtrace, module name, etc are suspect and can't be completely trusted even though they're usually correct. Maybe on reboot they could analyze the dump file for you but not in the STOP itself.

How about something like that beryl thing that linux has? The 3d interface vista has is fine but other options for it would have been nice... like a 3d cube? hmm?

The limitations that MS put on Aero are pretty disappointing, hopefully they'll realize how much they're hurting themselves and change that.

How about updated windows core programs? Paint could use an update, calculator too.

Paint maybe, but what do you want to do with calculator that you can't do now?

Its just... what were they doing for 5 years?

The core changes that had the most affect. Just moving as much of video and sound out of the kernel as possible and creating UAC are huge tasks. Then there was also splitting explorer and the window manager, converting the printing system from GDI to WPF, DirectX 10, enabling and testing address space layout randomization, I/O prioritization, BitLocker and more.

I wouldn't say UAC is such a huge task. Seems like all they did was layer it over everything. Especially with how often it pops up.

 

[nerp]

I wouldn't say UAC is such a huge task. Seems like all they did was layer it over everything. Especially with how often it pops up.

Seems like, eh? You're basically guessing here. And guessing wrong, at that.

 

[Infohawk]

The disappointment with Vista reminds me of the disappointment with XP. It's just an operating system. It's an improvement over the previous version but it's not going to make you a happier person. I'm not sure what people expect. There were "growing pains" with XP too. Service Pack 1 cleared up my problems.

 

[stash]

I wouldn't say UAC is such a huge task. Seems like all they did was layer it over everything. Especially with how often it pops up.

Read: http://technet2.microsoft.com/...c2811033.mspx?mfr=true

Then come back and let us know how you would implement that and how long it would take you. Thanks!

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: nerp
There is already a thread about this and very similar to PC World's other lame effort which said a mac is the fastest Vista notebook, blah blah, PC World isn't really relevant. I find them to be the biggest tech magazine disappointment for 2007.

No, that title would go to Maximum PC.

I'll agree that Vista has a lot to improve before I'm ever "impressed" with it.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: nerp
There is already a thread about this and very similar to PC World's other lame effort which said a mac is the fastest Vista notebook, blah blah, PC World isn't really relevant. I find them to be the biggest tech magazine disappointment for 2007.

No, that title would go to Maximum PC.

I'll agree that Vista has a lot to improve before I'm ever "impressed" with it.

Namely:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

???????????????????????????????????

Do you actually use it...?

 

[htne]

Allow me to address several different topics which have come up over the course of this thread.

First, moving to XP. I originally ran DOS, then Windows, then Windows for Workgroups. From there, I moved to OS/2. At that point, I thought I had died and gone to heaven. I reluctantly moved from OS/2 to Windows 95 after I saw the writing on the wall. I did not prefer Win95, but it was easy to see where the rest of the world was going. From Win95 I moved to NT 3.51 and then NT 4.0. Once again, I really, really liked the improvements in NT over Win95. I moved from NT4 to Win2K during the early beta phase, as Win2K was just a better NT. When XP originally shipped, I did not move over immediately, as I was happy with Win2K and there weren't a lot of improvements, not for what I was doing anyway. About 18 months after XP shipped, I went ahead and moved all of my computers over to XP. I waited until I was sure that XP was more stable than 2K. That is the position I am taking with Vista. At this point in time, Vista has nothing that I need that I do not already have in XP. I feel fairly certain that at some point in the future, Vista will be more stable and support more hardware than XP. But right now, 13 months after Vista shipped, that is not true. So I will wait.

On the question of UAC, and how much effort it took (programming effort): I do not know the answer, but in my opinion, it was all wasted effort. I made a living writing software under Unix for many years. The Unix security model is better than UAC, and could have been had for free or next to nothing. Certainly a lot less than they spent developing UAC.

On the question of what Microsoft worked on so hard for 5 years: I think a lot of that time and effort went into things that were eventually not included. There is a lot of evidence to support that supposition. For one thing, the WinFS -- how many thousands of man-hours went into that black hole?

I don't think Microsoft is making very wise choices about how to invest their time, energy, and money. And a lot of that comes from not having any real competition. AT&T had to be broken up before there could be any real competition in their market, and without real competition, telephone services (especially long distance) stagnated. No innovations, no (or very little) improvements, and way too-high costs. I believe our computing experience today would be vastly different and better if Microsoft had not had a stranglehold on the OS market for the last 10 to 15 years.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: htne
Allow me to address several different topics which have come up over the course of this thread.

First, moving to XP. I originally ran DOS, then Windows, then Windows for Workgroups. From there, I moved to OS/2. At that point, I thought I had died and gone to heaven. I reluctantly moved from OS/2 to Windows 95 after I saw the writing on the wall. I did not prefer Win95, but it was easy to see where the rest of the world was going. From Win95 I moved to NT 3.51 and then NT 4.0. Once again, I really, really liked the improvements in NT over Win95. I moved from NT4 to Win2K during the early beta phase, as Win2K was just a better NT. When XP originally shipped, I did not move over immediately, as I was happy with Win2K and there weren't a lot of improvements, not for what I was doing anyway. About 18 months after XP shipped, I went ahead and moved all of my computers over to XP. I waited until I was sure that XP was more stable than 2K. That is the position I am taking with Vista. At this point in time, Vista has nothing that I need that I do not already have in XP. I feel fairly certain that at some point in the future, Vista will be more stable and support more hardware than XP. But right now, 13 months after Vista shipped, that is not true. So I will wait.

On the question of UAC, and how much effort it took (programming effort): I do not know the answer, but in my opinion, it was all wasted effort. I made a living writing software under Unix for many years. The Unix security model is better than UAC, and could have been had for free or next to nothing. Certainly a lot less than they spent developing UAC.

On the question of what Microsoft worked on so hard for 5 years: I think a lot of that time and effort went into things that were eventually not included. There is a lot of evidence to support that supposition. For one thing, the WinFS -- how many thousands of man-hours went into that black hole?

I don't think Microsoft is making very wise choices about how to invest their time, energy, and money. And a lot of that comes from not having any real competition. AT&T had to be broken up before there could be any real competition in their market, and without real competition, telephone services (especially long distance) stagnated. No innovations, no (or very little) improvements, and way too-high costs. I believe our computing experience today would be vastly different and better if Microsoft had not had a stranglehold on the OS market for the last 10 to 15 years.

I hear you man. I also work with Unix for software development (ERP, websphere, EAI) and I know what you mean about UAC. Unix is much more secure without prompting user every freaking time you wanna do something. I am not against more security, but the way Vista implement UAC leave a lot to be desired.

Seriously, if Microsoft didn't have the advantage in that most software are platform dependent and they either run poorly or not at all with platform like Mac or Linux, Microsoft would cease to exist. At least my computing experience would have been vastly improved if I can use Linux or Mac OS to run all application I use today instead of having to stick with Microsoft.

 

[Nothinman]

On the question of UAC, and how much effort it took (programming effort): I do not know the answer, but in my opinion, it was all wasted effort. I made a living writing software under Unix for many years. The Unix security model is better than UAC, and could have been had for free or next to nothing. Certainly a lot less than they spent developing UAC.

The difference is that the unix security model is extremely simple, too simple in some cases, and has nothing like UAC in it. The only reason that certain applications popup password prompts is because the shortcuts are set to run 'gksu appname' or they're specifically designed to check and ask while UAC is handled by the system. Whenever a process tries to do something that requires admin rights the system throws up a UAC prompt and the app has no clue that it happened.

 

[Maximilian]

I forgot to mention this before, but i just noticed it again. I still cant drag and drop windows around on the taskbar, i can drag and drop tabs around in firefox why not the taskbar? Its only been around for nearly 13 years.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Soviet
I forgot to mention this before, but i just noticed it again. I still cant drag and drop windows around on the taskbar, i can drag and drop tabs around in firefox why not the taskbar? Its only been around for nearly 13 years.

That's annoying to me as well. I like my 'regular' apps in a certain order in the taskbar. Sure would be nice to be able to drag them around like Firefox tabs.

FWIW, I'm using Ubuntu (Gnome) and it has the ability to do just that!

 

[stash]

That's annoying to me as well. I like my 'regular' apps in a certain order in the taskbar. Sure would be nice to be able to drag them around like Firefox tabs.

Yeah, I've caught myself trying to drag windows around the taskbar a few times. They put that functionality in IE7. Not sure why it wasn't done for explorer, but my guess would be that it wasn't a highly requested feature. Not that it makes it any less annoying

 

[Pabster]

Another "mainstream" magazine spreading FUD.

Vista the biggest disappointment of '07? Perhaps to Mac evangelists or Linux fanatics, because it's just so damn good. :laugh:

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: nerp
There is already a thread about this and very similar to PC World's other lame effort which said a mac is the fastest Vista notebook, blah blah, PC World isn't really relevant. I find them to be the biggest tech magazine disappointment for 2007.

No, that title would go to Maximum PC.

I'll agree that Vista has a lot to improve before I'm ever "impressed" with it.

Namely:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

???????????????????????????????????

Do you actually use it...?

Surely you have the ability to use Google and see the wide complaints about Vista. I'd have to agree with most of those complaints. If you need help then I will assist you: http://www.google.com

Happy hunting...

Do I actually use it? All the time but not on my primary computer because I prefer to enjoy my computer use during the day.

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Another "mainstream" magazine spreading FUD.

Vista the biggest disappointment of '07? Perhaps to Mac evangelists or Linux fanatics, because it's just so damn good. :laugh:

I don't think it's FUD at all.

The article pointed out the many hardware and software incompatibilities when it debuted, which is a very true statement. The article points out how annoying UAC is, of which it is in so many ways.

But the article wasn't all about Vista. It was about the tech disappointments of 2007. The Microsoft Zune was on there, the Apple iPhone, Facebook and even the HD format battle. So look over the article as a whole and not just about Vista being the #1 disappointment according to them.

Really, after all the previous OS releases Vista should have been done right. It wasn't. If you don't think so then you should check out the patches released by Microsoft a little more often before you install them to see exactly what they are fixing.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938194

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938979

If Vista has been flawless and articles from PC World spread FUD then what was the need for these from Microsoft? Shame on you...

 

[Mem]

Really, after all the previous OS releases Vista should have been done right. It wasn't. If you don't think so then you should check out the patches released by Microsoft a little more often before you install them to see exactly what they are fixing.

Lol.. got to laugh at this you think there will ever be an OS without patches or updates ,no OS is perfect and never will be, not XP or Vista and not even Vienna when that gets released,its good Microsoft release updates/fixes etc its called support and I welcome all support for Vista just like I welcome it for 2K,XP etc..if they did nothing you would be bitching about that do I need to go on?

The article pointed out the many hardware and software incompatibilities when it debuted, which is a very true statement. The article points out how annoying UAC is, of which it is in so many ways.

Again any new OS will have some hardware/software incompatiblilites ,XP was the same maybe you should email the hardware vendors when it comes to lack of drivers and tell them to get off their ass and get them sorted(Vista is almost a year old how much time do they need),Microsoft is already doing it can with regards to the OS related problems,SP1 will soon be here just like SP3 for XP,and other various updates/fixes etc....

End of the day hardware/software companies have to take some responsibility with their products with regards to Vista,can't blame OS for everything.

UAC remarks keeps popping up like a broken record, don't like then disable it ,anybody that buys or has Vista should know what UAC is by now and what options are available with UAC if they don't like it.

Btw I find UAC is not annoying so that article is wrong where I'm concerned,took me 2 weeks to get use to UAC on Vista ,this is from a person that was using XP for almost 7 years.

Do I actually use it? All the time but not on my primary computer because I prefer to enjoy my computer use during the day.

My XP PC has become redundant due to the excellent stability of my Vista x64 in gaming and general use(up to 50 working games installed now with all possible drivers ),infact my XP only gets used for updates/fixes that I need to download for it,again its good support by Microsoft,I'm glad I don't take that PC World article serious or any others like it,I better reserve my seat for Vienna too because you can bet the same old FUD is going to reappear when that is out.

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: Mem
Lol.. got to laugh at this you think there will ever be an OS without patches or updates ,no OS is perfect and never will be, not XP or Vista and not even Vienna when that gets released,its good Microsoft release updates/fixes etc its called support and I welcome all support for Vista just like I welcome it for 2K,XP etc..if they did nothing you would be bitching about that do I need to go on?

I expect patches and updates but Vista is 6 years after XP. They've had how many years to make sure it worked properly? The KB articles I linked to weren't about security updates though. Those were compatibility and performance patches. There is a difference...

Originally posted by: Mem
Again any new OS will have some hardware/software incompatiblilites ,XP was the same maybe you should email the hardware vendors when it comes to lack of drivers and tell them to get off their ass and get them sorted(Vista is almost a year old how much time do they need),Microsoft is already doing it can with regards to the OS related problems,SP1 will soon be here just like SP3 for XP,and other various updates/fixes etc....

End of the day hardware/software companies have to take some responsibility with their products with regards to Vista,can't blame OS for everything.

UAC remarks keeps popping up like a broken record, don't like then disable it ,anybody that buys or has Vista should know what UAC is by now and what options are available with UAC if they don't like it.

Btw I find UAC is not annoying so that article is wrong where I'm concerned,took me 2 weeks to get use to UAC on Vista ,this is from a person that was using XP for almost 7 years.

I expect better for compatibility and performance considering the length of time between XP and Vista and the time it took to develop. I guess I am not like you in seeing the positive out of everything negative. My response is that they should fix it but yours is that you should get used to it. See the difference?

I know you can disable UAC but it's that a huge point of Vista? Aren't there all of these cool things built around UAC?

I am LOL @ you getting used to UAC. That's just too funny...

Originally posted by: Mem
My XP PC has become redundant due to the excellent stability of my Vista x64 in gaming and general use(up to 50 working games installed now with all possible drivers ),infact my XP only gets used for updates/fixes that I need to download for it,again its good support by Microsoft,I'm glad I don't take that PC World article serious or any others like it,I better reserve my seat for Vienna too because you can bet the same old FUD is going to reappear when that is out.

If it's true then it's not FUD. Thanks!

 

[Skeeedunt]

I'm guessing most of the people complaining about UAC haven't spent much time running XP under a non-admin account. Going from Run As... under different credentials to UAC was a huge improvement. It wasn't really a "new security feature" as much as it was a vastly better way to take advantage of existing privilege separation, and to ease the transition to non-admin accounts.

Obviously going from a less secure setup (all admin, all the time) to a more secure one will require a little more work on the user's behalf. I'd go as far as to say that all of the major desktop operating systems are "fairly secure" at this point - gone are the days of frequent, gaping holes in core OS code. The main security improvement left is to give the user the opportunity to play a bigger role in safeguarding their system by giving them greater insight into and control over what runs. I think UAC does a decent job of this, if users are willing to pay attention and participate.

If running as an admin without UAC is good enough for you, that's fine. We all have our own definition of the best balance of security vs. effort. But for those of us who want increased security, I think UAC provides a good security return for minimum investment.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: stash

That's annoying to me as well. I like my 'regular' apps in a certain order in the taskbar. Sure would be nice to be able to drag them around like Firefox tabs.

Yeah, I've caught myself trying to drag windows around the taskbar a few times. They put that functionality in IE7. Not sure why it wasn't done for explorer, but my guess would be that it wasn't a highly requested feature. Not that it makes it any less annoying

Not highly requested? Hmmm... maybe you could drop the hint for us?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Skeeedunt
I'm guessing most of the people complaining about UAC haven't spent much time running XP under a non-admin account. Going from Run As... under different credentials to UAC was a huge improvement. It wasn't really a "new security feature" as much as it was a vastly better way to take advantage of existing privilege separation, and to ease the transition to non-admin accounts.

Obviously going from a less secure setup (all admin, all the time) to a more secure one will require a little more work on the user's behalf. I'd go as far as to say that all of the major desktop operating systems are "fairly secure" at this point - gone are the days of frequent, gaping holes in core OS code. The main security improvement left is to give the user the opportunity to play a bigger role in safeguarding their system by giving them greater insight into and control over what runs. I think UAC does a decent job of this, if users are willing to pay attention and participate.

If running as an admin without UAC is good enough for you, that's fine. We all have our own definition of the best balance of security vs. effort. But for those of us who want increased security, I think UAC provides a good security return for minimum investment.

You're right there (to the bolded) and I'm guessing many of those people also have problems with their browser getting hijacked, malware, etc, etc. Personally I find UAC a little too 'overprotective' at times but in the end it's just a single prompt.

 

[Madwand1]

It's a pretty good article. I'd add some booze to it, increase the number of items to 0x10, and top it with "Your Mama!".

 

[Genx87]

I always find it amusing in the tech circles there are so many effing luddites.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Megatomic
I never said it was hard, I said it's ease of use is less than that of XP. And for my wife it's not as pleasureable a computing experience either. I have never stated here nor anywhere else that it's horrible or a waste of money. But I've never endorsed it either. How's that for straddling the fence?

I'll be honest here, if I'm going to get used to a new operating system experience it's gonna have to be OS X. Vista doesn't appeal to me and it's going to be half a decade or so before Vienna goes gold.

OSX has popups like UAC. If she hates UAC she will hate OSX.