10 Things I Warned Microsoft About Windows Vista

Forget PC.

Time to switch to something else.

May be to Apple. They do look sleek.

@Javed Alam: It's to time to switch alright! But to Ubuntu Linux! For good! The hell with Vista!...

Joe, so you think Vista should be insecure, less capable (complex as you say) and there should be only one expensive edition, which fits both for large enterprises and for the average user (without beeing secure or complex). Are you nuts?

You know Fista is bloated & just bad when the CONTROL PANEL requires a load progress bar.

And as we all see with the number of vulnerabilities (24 & counting), some of which go back to windows 95, there's no new security under the sun for vista. It's the same old junk from MSFT.

AI: Really? What's that "security" problem which goes back to Win95? And the load progress bar is for Explorer collecting items, not just for the Control Panel.

Vista is great, and you people bashing it all over and over again are just childish. Get a life.

Moon: Joe is talking complexity for Joe User. Yes its more complex, if you have ever used say Ubuntu or OS X, their versions of UAC are so much less intrusive but as good or better. Micrsoft's copy job failed this time.

Versions....Steve Jobs said it best here......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtSDlSVDibA

To many versions, and unlike you say "only one expensive version" it could be only one $130 version and GPO's could turn off things like media center on a corporate PC.

I know people in IT 3 fortune 50 companies, myself a 4th and NONE of them have plans to move to Vista before 2010. Vista is a failure compared to XP. Its the catalyst for people to look at and move to new OS'es like OS X.

Interesting, the people I spoke with are feeling fine and confident with Vista, and none of them are planning to switch away.

Wait 3 or 4 years and _then_ say Vista was a failure.

Steve Jobs and his mighty company are arrogant and ignorant. They will never learn how to be leaders in the market, because their marketing is all about pure FUD and bashing the competitors. The market share (they're not gaining significant market) shows it all.

Joe, you columns are uninspired and irrelevant to enterprise IT professionals. And you wonder why Microsoft ignores you? I'm surprised they let you into the room to ask questions. I guess a Ziff Davis press pass can get you in just about anywhere.

another vista bash article...sick of hearing this...I run vista from day 1!! its good..and matured enough

Hello Joe,
I worked for the UI team when I was at Microsoft and think I remember meeting you.

Let me tell you, many my ex-co-workers at Microsoft feel the same about Vista as you do. The fact is, some executives are considering to abandon it. I don't see how they will do that as there has been so much investment into it. Nonetheless, your raise some important and fair points.

Excellent observations, Joe. I made the switch to the Mac in Sept. of 2006, because even then I could tell Vista would be a failure. Microsoft continues to make the same mistakes over and over.

@Moon
MS is glad you’re happy with its new OS. They are happy you enjoy your new baked in DRM and their ability to shut off your OS (politely called reduced functionality mode) if they feel you may be running a pirated copy. They are glad you are happy that you don't mind them with that back door into your computer. Unfortunately my company is not willing to except these improvements that benefits the customer err Microsoft and have decided they are not comfortable with a manufacturer having the ability to check in on us or even reduce a couple of thousand desktop into reduced functionality boat anchors. I can't for the life of me understand why. I like that level of Big Brother in my life just like you.

Scott: The built-in DRM support is a chance for Windows users to play Hollywood movies on their PCs, not Microsoft's attempt to badger them.

On the activation process: "if they feel" Feel? What are you talking about? Backdoor? Where?

Here we go again... bigbrother urban legends. I'm sick and tired of this bullshit.

In short, you should have been the one who developed Vista and MS should've acted to your bidding. my! people still read this particular MS site? keep blabbering Joe. you still can't write about technology.

Joe I agree with 99% of your observations, in particular to the fact that there are just way to many Vista sku's and the fact that it takes a high end machine to really enjoy everything the OS has to offer. I do feel that Vista has reached the point that it is able to run pretty much anything thrown at it at this point but it takes a much higher end hardware platform to do it enjoyably. You can use a much lower powered machine to do the same running XP. I was an early adopter of Vista Enterprise at work and Vista Ultimate at home. Both machines have both since been reverted back to XP Pro. I just have much less waiting to do with XP.

Geez...talk about "look how good I am and how rubbish Vista is".

Vista isn't rubbish and most people I know really like it. The only people who don't like it are the soapbox bloggers like yourself.

Please, Mr Wilcox, treat us all to another article; maybe one about what it's like to be all-knowing and indeed perfect.

Every new release of Windows is both loved and reviled. There's always a "fanboy" club (well, except for WinMe), and there's always the "haters." People generally dislike change, and they REALLY dislike change just for the sake of change. MS took away our old comfortable ugly shoes and gave us new, stiff shiny ones. Yes, Vista suffers because it's overly complex and confusing to OEMs and consumers, but it really isn't all that bad. It's stable, runs reasonably fast (providing you've got the hardware), very slick-looking and has a more cohesive feel to it. The UAC and all the informational pop-ups can get annoying, though, but that's only when you're adding software or making changes to the system. Otherwise, it gets out of your way reasonably well. I think that people set their expectations too high for Vista - but that's probably Microsoft's fault. I guess that I have a different opinion about it because I switched to Mac OS X about 2 years ago. I use Vista only occasionally, but it gives me no problems when I do - unlike my experience with XP.

I'm uninstalling Vista as I type this. Never again will I use this operating system. I've never been so frustrated with using the computer. EVER! And I'm a freaking developer! This is the worst, worst Microsoft product I've ever used. Never again. I'm going to go back to XP. Many new gray hairs on my head from this HORRIBLE Vista operating system. I'm pretty close on giving up on MS completely after over 10 years of using their developer products. Just amazingly bad experience with Vista. Just did a quick review of my post and it looks like I did a good job of refraining from using the VULGAR language I'd really like to use to describe this OS.

@Moon
Here is the "bullshit" you should be sick of
http://blogs.technet.com/james/archive/2007/02/02/windows-vista-volume-activation-and-reduced-functionality-mode.aspx
You can sugar coat it and can pretend it doesnt exist but it is a corporate security risk. Period end of story!

You don't need DRM to play Hollywood movies. You have just been spoon fed to think you do.

Joe is "Off-the-wall" at times, but the point he makes about Vista being the reincarnation of Windows ME brought a smile to my lips. I have both operating systems on computers throughout my extended family. I will agree, that those who never had a computer before and bought one with Vista did not recognize the differences. (If you never had FM stereo before, AM mono was "good enough").
However, once you have used XP for a period of time, then bought a computer expecting the functionality and speed of XP or better, the disatifaction with the operating system starts to fester.
I think of an operating system in the way I think of transportation to get me to work. My old Toyota truck does just fine and serves the purpose. Sure I would like to enjoy the status of having a big SUV, but it would be because I did not care about all the others costs that come with it. I am happy with XP and hope MS keeps it around for many more years to come. In this case "good enough" is much better than the successor.

Things that are preventing enterprise adoptoption;
1. UI advances are not seen as business critical.
2. Legacy support is questionable.
3. Reports that DRM are interfering with networking.
4. New security features have been shown to be just as vulnerable as XP, but more intrusive.

Even home users are not using it as it's gaming performance initially was slower then XP on the same hardware. Vista made a bad first impression and SP1 was hoped by people to fix it's short-comings, but it is not looking like it will address the main critiques that people have raised. MS got distracted by trying to make a general purpose OS that Hollywood would let them record TV and movies on, but they seem to have forgotten all the other uses that their OS is used for.

I really like vista features, but it's to damn slow to wake up from hibernation and when i shut it down it takes hours. So i have ubuntu and vista in my laptop, y use ubuntu in my work, and vista when i want to play around.
Sorry for my bad english (i'm chilean and i'm a doctor, NO IT pro)

I have personally "upgraded" over 15 brand-new laptops, formatting the hard-drive after copying personal data, and then installing XP. The difference in speed and ease of use is astounding when compared to Vista when XP is set up with the proper drivers and configured for optimal performance.

The trick is finding all the drivers for machines that come with Vista pre-installed.

Come on, you want MS to listen to you, then be a little bit more intelligent and think before you post rubbish like this.

UAC may be bad but give them a break, if it wasn't there and we had another blaster type exploit being reported you would be the first one to jump on the bandwagon and demand Microsoft make a more secure OS...and god forbid, you may even threaten to move over to Apple...shock horror.

Maybe you're next article could be "Windows Vista - 10 things I jumped on the bandwagon about"

The only things I dislike about Vista is that there aren't more applications developed "WPF" for it, network companies are slow to take advantage of the extensions, sound drivers are slow to take advantage and that it uses HDCP. None of these are really things MS has control over but all the same. Besides that I like it, of all the computers I manage at work the Vista machines require the least amount of work so far

only an ignorant jornalist would compare Vista to Windows ME/II.
Vista is majour release of Windows: Vista contains a lot of majour architectural changes that an ignorant jornalist can't understand.

another mac fanboy blog!

Vista works fine with me.

DO NOT buy Vista if it doesn't fit your needs. Stick to mac and shut up!

MS was determined to shoot themselves and their customers in the foot with Vista. During beta testing I informed them of slow network speeds, slow performance in general, the annoying UAC and rediculous route professionals had to go to to get to controls - MS said I was the only one mentioning those issues so it must be me.

Jeff - I agree about the upgrading - I've made quite a few bucks from clients who decided they wanted Vista against my recommendations. Every single one so far has been upgraded to XP from Vista. One guy I know hated Vista so much he's testing out Linux for his company - well done MS!

Well I'm sorry to say, Vista didn't cut it for us and we are in the middle of an upgrade... to Apple Macs. We converted one lab to Macs 1 year ago - 37 + XServe under the strictest cost analysis and reliability review at 3, 6 and 12 months. We conducted the same analysis for 3 other labs running XP and for the last 9 months one 10 desk Vista shop.
Results: Macs(OSX 10.4) : XP : Vista
Uptime: >99% : 92% : 54%
Component failures(as % of total machines): <1% : 16% : 22%
Yes the macs did cost more but have proved exemplary; the Vista machines have proved to be appalling.
System maintenance software(as % of whole): 18% : 14% : 68%
We expected the Macs to be above the curve but as it turned out only just. The Vista incompatibilities were too many to mention.
System maintenance OS(as % of whole): 22% : 31% : 47%
This one was a real surprise and echoes a real strength of Apple OS/hardware integration. Data corruption figures for the Macs were unbelievably good.
Off site consultancy fees: 16% : 22% : 72%
Training(as % of XP norm): +40% : 0% : +300%
Here was the biggest surprise of all. New systems are more expensive on roll out so no surprise with the mac result but Vista is different in so many ways and not consistent in all areas that the training costs were quite ridiculous for an upgrade and continuous as more software was migrated whereas the Mac costs were all in the first 6 weeks.

The experience has been good enough for us to decide to migrate around 70% of our desktops to Macs over the next 3 years. We will not be using Vista for the foreseeable future.
We are now evaluating the iPhone for company wide deployment.

This from a 100% Windows setup(apart from our engineering dept which went mac 3 years ago) and zero knowledge about Apple machines in an SMB. I think somewhere along the way, Microsoft just gave up improving Windows and was content to collect on the license fees and not do much else. It's a completely different atmosphere now when we contemplate IT spending; we expect more of everything to go right, at reduced cost. If you don't deliver on both these counts then some major changes are to be expected.

Another MS Vista bashing article. I have used all MS OS's since windows 95 and clearly Vista is the best. Duh, of course it needs more power, it has a stronger graphical interface among other better features. All you bashers must have short memories. XP also required greater power to run it. This is a natural evolution to a new OS. My first computer had Win 95 with a pentium 233, a whopping 32Mb memory, 6 gig hardrive and some crapy video card (can't remember the specs on it). Guess what, that system would never run XP properly. MS developed a high powered OS that needs a medium to high powered system. I would never go back to XP. You all need to embrace change and get a life.

Vista is a dog on lots of new computers that I see. One lady had an AMD64 X2 5000 and it was really sluggish. It took four hours and 4 re-re-reboots to set up her new system with a printer and Office. In a side-by-side test, GNU/Linux on a four year old PC was looking positively snappy. I agree pretty well with Joe's observations except that he seems to want M$ to succeed whereas I would be overjoyed if they cannot fix their OS. 100 million converts to GNU/Linux could come from this. I do not know anyone who likes anything about Vista except for the graphics.

Those horrified by Vista and not wanting to stay with a 7 year old OS can go to Mac OS, Solaris, FreeBSD or GNU/Linux. They will be better off. I strongly recommend Debian GNU/Linux because it is free, free and runs well on a wide variety of equipment.

Robert Pogson.

The average everyday novice computer user would never be able to grasp using Linux. 4 hours to set up a computer OMG what are you doing wrong. I have an AMD 3800 x2 with a 2 gigs ram and my system is very "snappy". Takes me about 1.5 hours from format to complete setup of Vista.

I like cheese.

Joe,

I think your article was well thought out, and a very reasonable warning to Microsoft that they might have done well to heed. Of course, when they would not listen to both Dell and Walmart either, about the Vista Capable labels, then nobody could change Gates and Ballmers minds. Especially when Walmart, the country's largest retailer cannot change the mind of MS, there is something very wrong there.

I would also comment on the number of
SKU's, as being really just a plan to raise the price of Windows, without seeming to do so. As people would be expected not to want basic, and buy ultimate. This has probably happened to a degree, which is why MS is making more on Vista, than XP, even though they sell less boxed versions of Vista than XP. To be fair, I think Joe has made similar statements to this effect, but not with the same words.

First, some commments on Joe's number 10. 10. Vista security features

The UAC is not the worst feature in Vista. Even I think its better with it on than off. It does give a little more protection, even though its basically a joke compared to security of Linux or Mac OS X systems. At best UAC is half baked. And unlike one commentator tried to say, the UAC and Vista, will not stop the next Blaster Worm. There really is not much to stop it in Vista. What I seen, is that MS has done a very poor job of doing anything to protect Vista. At least with XP you could get many 3rd party programs, and the free ones were very good. Vista however, breaks most of those free security programs, and is therefore, less secure than XP. BTW, as painful as it is, you can setup XP as a limited user account to surf on the internet as well. Although, you would be far better off, and lots easier to do (setup out of the box) with Linux, BSD, or Mac OS X. Those are modern systems, and secure compared to Windows.

I would add to your list of Ten;

11. DRM The elephant in the room. It was supposely put in so people could play High Definition DVDS like Blueray. But almost nobody had those drives, and will not for the foreseeable future. And if you already bought a laptop, it will probably never ever have a blueray drive in it, but still you are stuck with Vista with the crippling DRM in it that so affects performance. Why would you put in a DRM that cripples the Operating System so badly, when there was no benifit to 99.99% of the users??? The anwser is of course, something else, and MS lies again.

12. If there are no real improvements over XP, then users will notice the regressions, or the problems that did not exsist in XP. They will also notice problems that were in XP and not fixed in Vista as well. Vista fails on both accounts. Which is another reason that that boxed version are selling so poorly.

lastly;
@moon, you sound like a poster who used to comment here, Neil? could it be?

It took my 12 year old a day to get up and running on Ubuntu Linux and the installation took me about an hour. You would have to be a real dufus not be able to cope with modern distros of Linux and they give you a lot less trouble than windows.

@chips: UAC is better and safer than Linux's sudo.
Linux's security is also too primitive compared to Windows's permissions and groups policies. Linux security is just only "read, write, execute (R,W,X)" file permissions for Users, Groups and Others. Windows has these permissions and a lof of others.

Okay, all you need to know about this post you can get in the first points:

(1) Vista didn't have enough new features, and
(2) Vista was too late.

This is known as Dilbert management. "I know! Let's ship earlier AND deliver new features!" Please, Joe, come to my company and give us more sage advice aong these lines.

LOL here we go. Go buy your apples that look pretty and cost a fortune! Then go out and try to find software for it. Microsoft will always own the market. Don't blame them because a lot of software developers and accesories makers did not make their stuff compatible. Vista is the most secure operating system. to Chips- the real reason you think the MAC is so secure is the fact that hackers don't waste there time hacking something with a 5% market share- If Mac was the most popular then it would be under the same scrutiny as Windows. Be careful what you wish for. One of these days someone will hack it just to shut the tree huggers and DJ's up.

And i could at least add another 10 points why Vista sucks. Useless and large UI elements that use up valuable screen estate for nothing. A bundled calendar app that doesn't use birthdays from the also bundled contact management? Slow even with large amounts of RAM and so on... I tried hard to like it for several months now, but it's plain crap.

@Martin;
Quote; "Chips- the real reason you think the MAC is so secure is the fact that hackers don't waste there time hacking something with a 5% market share- If Mac was the most popular then it would be under the same scrutiny as Windows."
----------------------------------------------------
Martin,
Last I knew, Mac is up to 8% market share and gaining. Not sure, that could be only in the USA.
I do right now have a Mac machine to try. Myself, while I can see why some people would like the Mac, prefer Linux. Basically the same thing under the hood. I use Linux and XP sometimes. Longtime MS user. The one thing I can say, is that MS is losing market share. How much they will lose share in the future, is anyone guess. But if they cannot do better than Vi$ta, then most likely this slide in market share to alternative OS's, will continue.
----------------------------------------------------
Quote;
gargan :
@chips: UAC is better and safer than Linux's sudo.
--------------------------------------------------
Gargan, what have you been drinking? Ever hear of the animated cursor exploit? It affected both XP and Vista. UAC is a joke. Stop drinking the koolaid at MS.

Everything gets hacked actually - All OS's suffer the same security breaches, hacking is not downloading some application that specifically targets a system. I believe you are talking about Virii, Virii is typically a bigger issue for windows, because people like bashing MS. these virii are probably written on Unix or MACs to start with.

Vista is actually faster than XP on the same machine, It has bugs - more due to the lack of driver support with is ridiculous for an OS thats over 1 year old - ATI have stopped releasing catalyst drivers for mobility graphics cards even though the laptop market is booming, tricks like that are going to hurt vista.

All in all, Ubuntu uses about 13% of my 2GB memory, vista uses close to 40%. Vista still on average runs faster then Ubuntu thanks to various memory technologies at work ( Such as superfetch ).

I installed a similar program on Ubuntu ( preload "apt-get install preload" ) which greatly improved application load times, almost bringing it up to the speed of vista ( but not quite ).

Basically, I will say this.
Unless Linux comes pre-installed on your machine, your going to have to learn a few new tricks to get it running as well as a pre-installed windows OS.

Vista on the other hand comes pre-installed on most machines so works as well as most consumers would expect - Ive a seen a brand new computer user ( Im talking virgin n00b here ) pick up vista and start using it just like most of us did with 9x... All in all, as super users, weve come to expect more from our OS's, but if your a true power user, then use Linux - it will take a lot more configuring to get just right, but thats the point of linux, you get the OS you Want without bells and whistles you dont need.

Vista, Windows in fact, is developed to be a fully functioning all singing all dancing user OS aimed at new and old users alike. thats no easy task, and overall, vista does the job.

The only issue I have with vista, it was released too early with very annoying bugs ( even post-SP1 ) personally, I'd say the same about XP - Ive used XP-SP2 since SP2 was released and found it to be extremely stable and suitably fast* - but I couldnt say the same Pre-SP1 ( with it's no USB2 and no HDD over 80GB support... )

*on a 512-SDram, 1GB Duron mobility CPU.

vista is suitably fast on a 2GB SDram and Intel-C2D 2.4Ghz...

Why is MSFT so stupid as to keep sending out these shills to post how great and wonderful Vista is? Why doesn't MSFT just get it, Vista is worst than Millennium ever was. At least with Millennium, if it failed, or repeatedly BSOD on you at boot up, you would wipe it off the hard drive and not have to suffer with it for months, before giving up on it, like Vista.

So MSFT, give up already on Vista, and move on to something better for users.

Windows Seven will be another POC is its based on Vista, and only a minor upgrade. Go back to XP and base your next OS on that. Extend XP and drop Vista. Bring back MS Bob and clippy, they were better than Vista. Vista Sucks!

Same MSFT shills posting comments, different names.

Joe, you are still missing the point of Microsoft's SKU strategy. Its offering value and savings to consumers and businesses. My other brother purchased his first laptop last month, a Dell Inspiron (one of the colorful ones (blue lid). It came preinstalled with Vista Home Basic, so far he has been pleased with it and doesn't feel he is missing out on anything.

I have a friend who owns a Gateway which came preinstalled with Vista Home Premium, rarely have I seen him go into Media Center which is a feature specific to that SKU and Ultimate Editon. Basically, this proves my point that Microsoft offers consumers more choice by giving them all the features they want for what they want to do with their computers depending on the SKU.

If you know you are going to be joining a Domain on your laptop at work, but you also use it at home, then Vista Business is a suitable option. If its a laptop being used in different scenarios, record tv shows, join domains, ad-hoc meetings, Unix-subsystem; then Ultimate would be an appropriate choice and there are people out there who happen to do this.

Enterprise and Starter Edition are out of the eye of most consumers. Like you mentioned, Vista Ent. is primarily licensed to VLK customers, while Starter is available in certain developing markets.

Consumers in mature markets tend to have three primary choices when moving from XP to Vista: Home Basic, Home Premium, Business

Windows XP Home - Windows Vista Home Basic
Windows XP Media Center - Windows Vista Home Premium
Windows XP Professional - Windows Vista Business

Ultimate is a new SKU based on the complexity of the end users needs, someone who has a good enough system and want the best of both worlds. Its clearly stated at the back of the box.

Indeed, Vista is Windows Me II, but without the feeling that anything better is to come after it. With Windows Me we all knew that Microsoft could and eventually would do better. In the case of Vista the eventual issuance of a better OS than Vista is by no means assured.

Where did Microsoft go wrong?

MS went wrong years ago, when the firm appears to have tried to turn Windows into the equivalent of a Big Three auto, with the new models replacing old models quite needlessly.

MS built its original success on building out user capabilities on a stable OS core that we all thought would always run the software and hardware we were investing in over time. Early versions of MS Word etc (like WordPerfect etc), for example, allowed one to build on the product with detailed and complex macros, so that one could achieve, with most of its products, a high degree of profit-positive automation with the software. As time passed, however, MS became obsessed with selling us the same stuff over and over again and paid less and less heed to encouraging productive use of the product, and it was obvious that we were no longer being encouraged to find value in using their products in a deeply extended, laterally exploiting matter.

Instead we were invited to rebuy Windows and Office endlessly and merely dabble in the feature-sets of the products that MS offered.

MS took this so far that they ruined Vista with its customer-punishing SKUs that amounted to a significant price increase over XP. And then they created an opportunity-cost barrier in making Vista upgrades all-but impossible for power-users to install and to bother with, owing to the difficulty of getting a fresh upgrade install.

Microsoft must return to its true vision unless it wants to walk the same plank as the now Small Three American auto makers.

*YAWN* Another "told you so" article. Here's a thought, if the author is such a visionary why is he writing blogs instead of the next Windows OS.

Every OS has problems, Vista is Microsoft's attempt at taking the desktop metaphor further. It is totally impossible to please all of the people all of the time and still deliver something that works.

Does it have problems, of course.
Is it perfect, no.
Will Microsoft drop it as a product, no.
Will it improve, yes.
Will you get over it already, no.

So much negativity...I was using XP64 and thought it was great. I now use Vista Ultimate 64 and think it is as good or better. Very stable and fast. Why is there so much negativity?? Maybe you guys don't know how to set Vista up properly.

I'm glad there are some journalists willing to write negative reviews about Vista - we as the public aren't getting Microsoft's attention so hopefully they'll be so inundated with press that isn't just regurgitated Microsoft Press anouncements that they will actually consider trying to make Windows 7 a faster Operating system than Windows XP. Are you tell me that no one could make XP more efficient at doing the same things? I rewrite code on a regular basis and find ways to make it better. In five years Microsoft couldn't have rewritten the code for XP to make it faster, to make it the ultimate 64 bit OS? Do they need more emloyees, better programmers or just better beta testing and better managers to define the goals of the next OS?

@chips
Vista was not compromized by ANI exploit because UAC reduced the privileges.

@chips
Vista was not compromised by ANI exploit because UAC reduced the privileges.

@gargan

Here is a link for you on the cursor patch;

Cursor flaw gives Vista security a black eye

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Cursor-flaw-gives-Vista-security-a-black-eye/0,130061744,339274710,00.htm

Quotes from the link; "Microsoft's release of a "critical" patch on Tuesday poked holes in Vista's security promises, but security experts advise against discounting the new operating system.

The software giant broke with its monthly patch cycle Tuesday to fix a bug that cybercrooks had been using since last week to attack Windows PCs, including those running Vista.

As far as software vulnerabilities go, Vista's cover is blown," said Nand Mulchandani, a vice president at Determina, the company that discovered the latest security bug. "It is not Superman; it is just a human being. It is just software. Vista is going to be very similar to the other operating systems Microsoft has delivered in terms of bugs.

It is a flaw that should have been caught by Microsoft's code-vetting processes for Vista, called the Security Development Lifecycle, some experts said. The flaw is also evidence that faulty code from previous Windows versions has been copied into Vista, they said.

The dirty little secret is that Microsoft clearly did not write Vista from scratch. They did not completely build a whole new code base for this operating system. Every version of Windows since Windows NT has had this flaw in it

The cursor flaw is like a sign post for the bug hunters. Hackers will now be looking for bugs in similar Windows components to find ways to attack Vista.

"This has been a very significant break and it definitely gives a big pointer," Dhamankar said. "If more such errors are found later, Vista is not going to be able to offer the great protection that's claimed."
--------------------------------------------------
Even I have said that if you have Vista, then you should use the UAC. Its better than not using it. Would a user be better off creating a limited user account in XP and using that, coupled with all the free security software that runs in XP? YES.

Joe: how right you are. Microsoft Fistula has been the biggest disaster since Microsoft Bob and Microsoft ME.

Having sunk so much of its effort into this new OS, it's surprising that more of the leadership haven't been made to fall on their swords as a result of its abysmal marketplace performance.

Would you please identify some of the specific people who were/are responsible for this disaster, so that we can shame them publicly?

I am AverageJoeUser
1. Too many Fiesta Versions
2. Bought a Dell Inspiron 530 Quadd Q6600
Went to Craigslist, bought a Win XP Pro re installtion CD for $15
Reformatted the hard drive and installed XP, no activation, no key required, runs like a dream.

Also bought a Gateway GT5630E, Q6600 with Fiesta Home Premium.
Had too many problems, wont run right, is too confusing,
When I try to do things, it asks me if I really want to do what I asked it to do. Its driving me crazy.
Wont give me access to certain files/folders. why not its my puter/am the only user.

Turned that UAC junk off, I dont need it. I am AverageJoe.
Had to turn off the hibernate/sleep stuff. was causing me problems.
Have to reboot about once a day cause it does wierd things, like wont run control panel nor personalize.
My computers ratings are too low, even with 4 Gb RAM and Q6600. what gives?
Overall it sucks but what can I do?
wait for the next windows?
dont really want to learn yet another OS, ie mac or linux...but...did download that Linuz os some friend keeps telling me to try out kalyway Leo?

I agree witha bsolutely everything that you've said in this article, ever since Windows Vista was released I raised all of those questions above to myself and haven't been dragged in by the gimmick that is Windows Vista, I'm sticking with Windows XP until I get enough of a reason to switch to Windows Vista in the future, otherwise it's highly likely that I'll switch to Macintosh, it seems the only way forward, they seem to be dominating right now.

My brother bought a HP computer with Windows Vista Premium and I was really disappointed, every five minutes there's a really patronizing warning message telling you that you're doing something wrong; something that seems like a bit of a scare tactic, that would make any older, less experienced user scream in despair and phone up an IT Technician, it's ridiculous.

Anyway, not going to rant much longer. Whatever.

Why do you short article is causing a stir?
It could be because : “Ready or not, Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is on deck for delivery this week”
---------
It is the last MS' hope of gets to Vista fly (but doesn’t pig fly? Maybe but they need some help ) and the last hope of some shills for get their new Notebook.

paesan: It takes me about 4 minutes per CD to install from CD or 4 minutes for a complete install of a default desktop from my network using GNU/Linux, limited by read/write rates.

I am not kidding. That recent dual core system took 20 minutes to restore to factory, 15 minutes to evaluate the "experience" (3.0), and the rest of the time was spent clicking, gawking and re-re-rebooting. We installed Office, failed to install Norton (code not accepted), and a printer. Four hours... After all that time it still felt like it was running neck deep in water. I have 40 years' experience with computers and have not seen anything that slow since the 6502.

Quote;
Marco :

Why do you short article is causing a stir?
It could be because : “Ready or not, Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is on deck for delivery this week”
---------
It is the last MS' hope of gets to Vista fly (but doesn’t pig fly? Maybe but they need some help ) and the last hope of some shills for get their new Notebook.
-----------------------------------------------------
Perhaps a better name for Vista Service Pack 1 would be "Vista Marketing Pack 1"?

After all, it really only fixes some of the side issues with Vista. Program capability is not improved, performance is still a pig, and DRM and profit is still the overridding reason for this operating system.

As a marketing pack, it will be profitable for MS, in that more users, specifically businesses will now buy into, and feel the pain of Vi$ta.

Mr Pogson.

Hmmm, funny how Norton works for me. Office installed fine. My computer works fine and works as fast as XP. What ever floats your boat. If Linux is so great then why aren't alot of people using it. Doesn't cost much. Must be because it is not "average Joe" user fiendly. Also, there is not nearly as many programs that the everyday user would like. What are you going to tell your kids when they want to play games that their friends have. Sorry it is Linux or nothing. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

MSFT could have saved a lot of trouble by simply releasing versions of Vista without DRM. Why did the business and basic needed DRM in the first place?

If MSFT released Vista business without the DRM, the Vista migration would have been much more than it is now. DRM in Vista requires certain signed drivers and hardware, thus enters the compatibility problems with older equipment.

So no DRM and no Blue Ray? Really, how many businesses would have suffered without Blue Ray capability?

With many of them sticking to XP much longer than MSFT expected...something tells me the lack of Blue Ray on XP machines means nothing to business. So why force it on those who didn't need it?

Unless there was "another" reason for DRM in all versions of Vista. Maybe MSFT can explain this more clearly sometime for us...eh?

And the DRM itself needs high RAM and speed requirements to operate properly. No DRM, and chances Vista would have run Ok on older computers and the adoption rate would have been much, much higher.

Lastly there was no need for DRM for Vista Basic, I doubt someone would be using a laptop with 512 MB for Blue Ray...even they could afford to put a Bluy Ray driver into that $399 laptop.

Further the original contention for DRM in Vista so that it could play Blue Ray and HD DVD. Well HD DVD died and Blue Ray is all thats left. there is even less compelling reason for DRM in ANY operating system.

Sum it up, yes the Vista marketing was awful and they should have released it on time. MSFT could have saved themselves from all this mess by releasing some versions of Vista without the DRM. ...thats where they went wrong....

SCOTT FREEMAN wrote:
"They are glad you are happy that you don't mind them with that back door into your computer".
Hey Scott, when HP was replacing my laptop last year they told me there was 5 backdoors in Vista, not just 1. And 2 was for government access.

I'm not a Microsoft hater, but Vista sure does bite, a real disaster. From toolbars that cannot be customized or turned off, to a progress bar while deleting files that jumps BACKWARDS as new files to delete are enumerated, to a Control panel that takes 5 seconds+ to load, and many many new layers of unnecessary mouse clicks to do anything (change system time, change display settings...) it's just crap.

And the interface, can you just give me a nice interface? Why do I need shines, sparkles, transparencies, and reflections or whatever just to do my work? Heck Media Player 11 has the Vista Style interface and it runs and looks absolutely great on XP! So do some of the new Live applications. Do I care that my maximize buttons don't glow? Not when it will cost me $200 or more to upgrade a video card to experience that crap. And if you can't get Aero, you are stuck with the stupid interface with the crappy maximize/minimize/close buttons that look totally Fisher-Price. I won't even get into the complexities of searching for files.

Ug... I'm not into Macs or Linux, so this isn't a religious thing for me, but it makes it all the more disheartening that a company with such resources screwed up the OS that I do use. Oh well maybe next time. at least I don't have to pay for it (my work computer run a Volume License installation). Thank goodne$$ for me...

I used Vista for a while and it's SO SO bad.. I hate it so much. I have been using computers since Commodore 64. I used TRS-80, Windows 95, XP, Amiga, Mac, etc, etc. I think Vista is worse than XP in very simple things like copying files and looking at folders.

paesan: about 60 million people are using GNU/Linux on the desktop today. Strong growth is predicted for several years. Adoption is focussed narrowly in North America where people seem to tolerate BSODs and the M$ tax but GNU/Linux is doing very well in South America, Eastern Europe, and Asia. Growth rates are double or triple the rate of increase of PCs so GNU/Linux is making gains on that other OS but it takes time because of the huge head start and installed base of XP. Vista is another matter. Most of the world's PCs cannot run Vista and new PCs are being cranked out at about 300 million per year. Most of them bear XP, a few have Vista and a similar number have GNU/Linux and Mac OS.

XP is about 7 years old and when it is no longer supported many machines running XP will migrate to GNU/Linux because they cannot run Vista. That will give a huge spike in GNU/Linux usage. People will not destroy huge numbers of PCs just because Wintel wants them to do that.

For about 10 years, GNU/Linux has been a geeky OS but for the last five years, GNU/Linux has been usable once set up by a geek. Now we have OEMs supplying GNU/Linux boxes. Non-geeks can use them. If OEMs advertise as ASUS did, GNU/Linux will take off even without the Vista debacle.

Mr Pogson.

You have some valid points. Right now Linux is still not ready for the so called mainstream. I build and program computers. I also help out the so called "average joe user" and can't believe how many people are still computer illiterate.I hope Linux can make it because competition is good. Look at Intel now, AMD has fallen off and now their CPUs are getting scarce and selling above MSRP. Same thing for Nvidia, the lack of a real graphic card cometition allows Nvidia to hasten development of new chips and inflates prices. MS is far from perfect. Not by a long shot. They definitely need to improve their OS but it is good for the masses.

Our IT department guys are pulling their hair out trying to get Vista laptops to run on the network. Luckily bald is in these days. :)

Wow! Joe, I do believe that you have hit a home run with this blog entry of yours! An entire spectrum of followers has come out in force, all the way from the opinionated-but-polite-and-informative, to the highly emotional I'm-right-and-you-are-an-idiot types, all the way down to the foul-language gutter snipes.

Stepping back, I am fascinated by the range of opinions and emotions. These are only general observations, but...

In general, the Linux crowd is often disdainful of the Windows crowd, and almost always unable to see why anyone would stay with Windows.

In general, the Mac crowd is similar to the Linux crowd, except they can claim real application productivity; in particular, the widely acclaimed and pioneering Adobe products were always found on Mac first and still run best on Mac.

In general, the Windows crowd is most emotionally charged, spewing the most venom, viewing any disdain of Windows as an direct personal attack.
For instance, "Window$" and "Winblows" are terms that are smears of a product, but "freetards" and "open source bigots" are terms that are smears against people.

These are, of course, gross generalizations. But they seem to be supported by the range of posts on Microsoft Watch.

For any group of people who use one personal computer operating system or other, there are those who find (X) easy to install, (X) hard to install, (X) easy to use, (X) hard to use, (X) has all the applications they need, and (X) is missing critical applications that they need, where (X) is Windows, Mac, or some Linux distribution. Every one of these platforms has horror stories; every one has success stories.

And I wonder, why do people who have built their lives and careers and, in many cases, their fortunes, around Microsoft products act as if they are threatened by someone who disdains Microsoft or Windows or somehow manages to like some version of Linux or Mac?

If Joe writes glowingly of Microsoft and its products, his views are contradicted quite strongly by the Mac and Linux crowds. But if Joe writes disparagingly of Microsoft or its products, Joe the person is attacked, usually with poor grammar and hideous spelling and sometimes even with foul language.

Do Windows users feel deep down inside, that they are like the dinosaurs near the end of their reign, at once powerful but now threatened? If Macs were really over-priced junk and Linux was a tinkertoy, what justifies an emotional, name-calling, hate-filled reaction, when amusement at fools would seem to be much more appropriate?

When Boeing or Airbus sees old movies of people strapping on wings and falling clumsily off cliffs, do they laugh or show pity, or do they work themselves into a hate-filled lather at potential competition? Why then does the Windows crowd at once view Mac and Linux unworthy and at the same time view them as life-threatening competition?

Comments 5 and 10 of Mr.Wilcox are stupid. Rest is right. For me Vista works perfect, but I would not upgrade to Vista if I would not buy a new PC.

I don't understand why people are bashing the writer of this article rather than addressing the issues raised. The write has VERY valid points.

Attack the issue at hand and not the author.

Joe has couple of valid arguments, i had vista on my laptop after 3 days i changed back to xp/ubuntu
the most annoying thing in vista with all the new innovating features why the hell our the box can't i during the installing period choose/highlight i do or dont want to install?!
there so much crap in the os no wonder it's slow and takes so much space..
anywayz i heard the next windows 7 or something will address this

well i guess will see

Remember quotes like these from BillG?
# Longhorn, the next version of Microsoft Corp.’s Windows desktop operating system, will be so different from its predecessors that users may not like it right away.

# Longhorn makes it easy for your information to show up on any device. It makes it easy to navigate that information.

# Say you keep lists. Anytime that you’ve mentioned a restaurant, it automatically goes onto this list of restaurants, and your system would automatically keep track of what are the hours there, how that menu has changed.

# There is more R&D being spent on Longhorn than on the 747.

# Now that we are moving to this Web services world–a loosely coupled, message-based breakthrough that computer scientists have dreamed of for decades–all of the things that let that be possible need to be in the US$50 operating system. And so here we have Indigo that will be in Windows and let you do transactions and queuing.

I worked for Microsoft for 6 years and I'm a fan. And I don't think Vista sucks. I think it's XP with a new skin, some freeware security software, and better file indexing. I run it on my Lenovo desktop and occasionally under VMware on my MacBook Pro.

The point isn't that Vista sucks. It doesn't. The poins is that MSFT took 7 years to design and build it, spent BILLIONS of R&D on it, and for what? Most people seem to prefer XP or, at least, don't notice much difference.

Something went horribly, horribly wrong.

Around 7/10 of the people I know who have bought new PCs/Laptops with Vista find they like it after giving it some time to get used to it. Clearly it's biggest "problem" is it's to different from XP - they moved too much stuff around so people who have just now figured out how to use XP have to learn the basics all over again.

It would have benefited Vista a whole lot to have an “XP Theme” whereas Vista would look exactly like XP, only with all the Vista features under the hood, while still including Aero-like effects and features. Windows 95 had a similar feature where you could load a built in theme to get it to look and feel like Win 3.1, Program Manager and all. Such a thing on Vista with an XP-like interface would help a lot of new users learn to use Vista effectively, and in turn not decide they “hate” it because they have to learn Windows all over again (which for many was hard enough the first time around).

All the computer "experts" poopoo'ed Vista's memory management system (which is actually very similar to Linux's celebrated system - the OS will use as much RAM as it can see available - yet all the "experts" mistook this as a sign of bloat. The “average Joe user” read this in articles and regarded it as fact. That’s just ONE example of a Vista feature being misunderstood and backfiring.

Another problem with Vista was all the compatibility issues with it right after release. First impressions are everything (as well as word of mouth) and the compatibility issues Vista suffered during the first couple months of its release left a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

On the other hand over the past 6 months many older software titles were patched for Vista, and new drivers were released, bringing performance up to par with XP.

… I also remember reading the same “Why I hate Windows XP” articles from 2001-2004. Going by the “expert analysis” alone, one would think nobody used XP and stuck with 2K or 98 (yech!) until just before SP2 was released.

Joe, are you serious? Do you want a cookie?
This is why people find you annoying -- I'm amusing that you have the temerity to use the label "news analysis" on what is basically a 2000-word "Nyah Nyah I told you so" essay.

That's a lot of writing to say 'I told you so' but I was with you all the way and we were right! I'll not own Vista until it is correct. They just finally got XP right after all; I'm not ready to give up a product I waited 5 years for the vole to get right.

I think that vista is fine, yes it's really slow sometimes (and i wished it worked at home as well as the store model did) but i think it might be a little bit better than XP

Basic is stupid, and crap. if you bought a laptop with basic, it was the cheapest one in the store which was most likely only able to just squeeze through vista's intense requirements.

i've had experience with 3 vista computers, (+ instore) one with basic (mine) and two with premium. all were laptops. One laptop running premium was the same price as mine, and it wasn't on sale, just bought a couple months later and it runs perfectly. were as mine takes 20 mins to turn on.
The third laptop could probly run ultimate, everything on that laptop is super fast.

I don't think ME was all that bad, it worked pretty well untill you tried to up it to xp.

i remember when i still used xp, (on a computer meant for it) it was very fast but took way too long to turn on. that was a desktop running xp pro.
my old laptop running xp home was okay until i tried using internet, i had it for over a year before i used internet on it. This is why i think windows security is crappy, after a week of being online i had to send it in.
after that whenever i tried internet it would turn of within 10 mins, and this was before wifi. PHONE CORDS=ANCIENT

If your buying a computer, my advice is to not under any circumstances get vista basic. don't get premium either unless it's a little more high end than the cheapest model.

If you can afford it order a macbook from online (cuz their instore support sucks) or a mac mini of you want a desktop.
If you still need windows, get premium and parrellels but make sure your mac is powerful enough to run both.

Cameron Reilly writes:

"MSFT took 7 years to design and build it (Vista), spent BILLIONS of R&D on it, and for what? ... Something went horribly, horribly wrong."

Precisely the point. The entire debate about what is wrong with Vista misses the entire elephant. Bill Gates had promised Vista would be an entirely different system. He was predicting an operating system that would begin to demonstrate the fundamental qualities of what folks are now calling the Semantic Web.

The question Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer should be asked by these high-floating journalists is "what happened to the capability you built"?

In other words, their User Interface work survived as WPF. But, they've come to terms with what Gates and the rest of R&D were using all that time to do the kind of UI that we now see Silverlight targeted for. It was Burst Technologies and Eolas Technologies capabilities in the UI.

Web Applications can use dynamic graphics up to real-time video as a UI.

But that's only half an application.

The way the web application works... now THAT is what didn't make it out of the Longhorn slaughter. WinFS at its core is the ability to mate one body of data with another body of data using XML as a data structuring framework

THAT is what Tim Berners-Lee would tell you is one of the fundamental granular virtualization capabilities that underpin the Semantic Web theory.

Would not Microsoft be most proud of that achievement and find some incredible uses for that capability? One would think so... but they've kept it all buried in Microsoft since they lost Lucovsky to Google in early 2005.

So, what happened, Cameron? What went horribly horribly wrong?

For some reason they could, then they couldn't and now they still can't. What would cause something like that to happen inside a company? Andybody have any idea?

Sean: The fact is that this '"Nyah Nyah I told you so" essay' HAS to be addressed. Microsoft has had many years of the benefit of the doubt. They've seemingly flourished based on their description of who they are and how they do things. But, when the truth shines through, we find the story was no-where near where they said it was.

They prevaricate. They distort. They spin. They twist. They use all the words billions of dollars will pay for, and they deliver... words. Instead of production, they deliver words. Explanations how they worked very very hard but they didn't build all the stuff they said they had built.

For years, Microsoft was telling any journalist who would listen they owned XML and they had the products to do just about anything on the internet.

A lot of people believed all that. In fact, they say they actually saw it all. Bill Gates acted very confident. Steve Ballmer was even more energetically sure Microsoft "owned XML".

Now, instead, we have an anemic engineering effort resorting to acquiring piecemeal bits and pieces of cobbled capability... and no sign of anything to show for all this money.

Joe and all the other journalists should have been asking the questions back when Microsoft said they were cutting Longhorn. They should have, could have, would have dug a bit deeper and found out some things that would make sense... rather than having to scratch heads like stooges and ask each other what went wrong.

I think it's high time the "nyah nyahs" take a more adult turn and ask questions as to how and why the premier American software maker can't make software... since 2004.

gargan Says :
"@chips: UAC is better and safer than Linux's sudo.
Linux's security is also too primitive compared to Windows's permissions and groups policies. Linux security is just only "read, write, execute (R,W,X)" file permissions for Users, Groups and Others. Windows has these permissions and a lof of others."

@gargan :
ACLs are Access Control Lists for files and directories. They are based on the IEEE's POSIX 1003.1e draft 17, also known simply as POSIX.1e. ACLs are an addition to the standard Unix file permissions (r,w,x,-) for User, Group, and Other. ACLs give users and administrators flexibility and fine-grained control over who can read, write, and execute files. This can all be done without adding mysterious groups and pestering the system administrator.

Commercial Unix operating systems (except SCO) have all had ACL functionality for quite awhile. Microsoft's NTFS also has similar capabilities. FreeBSD 5.x supports POSIX.1e ACLs as well. The new Linux 2.6 kernel supports ACLs for EXT2, EXT3, XFS, JFS, and ReiserFS.

Martin,

Same old garbage from a very uninformed microsoft zombi. Do your homeworks, use internet, it is great for learning things... That is, if surfing the internet is not to demanding your Pasta to do. Microsoft is on the descending slope and going down way faster than some may think. Let Ballmer in charge.

I have two machines sitting here in front of me, one is a HP s3020n slimline and the other is a Vaio VGN FZ140E laptop. The first runs a duo core AMD processor at 2 Ghz and the second runs a duo core Intel at 1.8 Ghz. Everything that goes on the laptop also goes on the slimline as I use both to collect and measure efficiency and speed. The slimline is ' functionally ' much faster then the laptop even tho the hardware is very similiar in speed ratings. I have used and troubleshot computers since the early Dos days and I cannot get over how primitive Vista is even with the SP-1 update compared to a properly installed XP-SP2. The only reason I have left Vista on these two machines is because I am waiting for SP-3 for XP to come out. Once it does, I am changing my O/S. I have recommended to all my family members not to upgrade or consider buying a machine with Vista pre-installed. Now I won't blame this ' entirely ' on Microsoft as at least part of my dismay is due to the OEM ( Sony in particular ) who has made what should be a 1 hour re-install of Vista into a 3 hour nightmare with their inclusions of various add-on softwares that have sbsolutely no reason to exist on my computers. As far as I'm concerned Microsoft and the OEMs have created the NEED and as a result the GREAT DESIRE for anything that works better then the present Vista.
My only additional comment is that anyone who thinks Vista is a good operating system has surely never seen a GOOD operating system. Nuff said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Time for reactos anyone (still in alpha stage, but hey it's a start) www.reactos.org

Windows has never been as secure as Linux or OS X because Microsoft has never taken security seriously. The reason for that is dollars and cents. Microsoft's main customers are corporate and work on closed Intranets with network administrators. A Home User on the Internet has totally different security needs. For Linux and OS X the home user is King. For Windows he isn't. The only thing the Home User needs to be concerned with is how secure is the OS. Linux and OS X win here. Why go for the aggravation of Windows?

I hear a lot of Windows users go on about how many programs there are for Windows, but most of them seem to have a few games and M$ Office and that is it. There are thousands of very useful and very good programs on both OS X and Linux. A lot of the very best programs are written by software houses with 5 employees or less. We don't need corporate software. So unless you are a gamer you are better off with Linux or OS X. More real choice and more useful programs.

If Linux or OS X are too difficult for you then you are in a very sorry state indeed. In fact I have never met anyone who evaluated Linux, Windows and OS X and chose Windows. It just does not make sense for the Home User (unless he plays games).

@Avro:
"I hear a lot of Windows users go on about how many programs there are for Windows, but most of them seem to have a few games and M$ Office and that is it...So unless you are a gamer you are better off with Linux or OS X. [Vista] just does not make sense for the Home User (unless he plays games)."

So right there, you say that the majority of home-based Windows users have a few games, and then turn around and say that Linux and OSX are no good for people who play games. Would you like a dressing for that injured foot of yours? You might want to put the gun down, too, before you hurt yourself again.

As for Vista... it's definitely not terrible. Then again, I'm one of the few people I know who owned an Me machine and actually enjoyed using it more than the Windows 2000 partition above it or the various NT machines in the house. Not to mention, I tended to keep it running much better than the other computers. For what I used a computer for, Me did it better. Until XP came out anyway, and that pretty much ended that.

I do video editing, however, and I've been a user of Movie Maker technically since Me, though it took XP SP2 before I actually latched on. I worked the crap out of that program, to the point where I could get around any of the bugs it had save for one; the encoding buffer limit. When I heard about Vista for the first time I hoped it would have a new Movie Maker. When I heard that it had a new Movie Maker, I hoped it had fixed the encoding buffer limit. And so Vista came out, I used it, and sure enough it was fixed. That fulfills my needs, right there. And it does it better than XP can. And let's compare XP Pro x64 to any x64 implementation of Vista... I'll bet you that you can get Vista working a lot more easily than XP. Where XP Pro x64 has a serious lack of common drivers, Vista does not.

I'm not saying Vista doesn't have flaws. It uses way too much RAM just sitting there idle, it has issues with folder settings and list view, and the whole "signed driver" scheme is a complete crock. That does make the OS more difficult to use than XP. But it does have plus points, and MS is working on updates all the time. I merely hope that my small gripes are catered to. Maybe then my next system won't dual-boot XP.

Why the hell did I read this piece of crap... we've arrived at a point where those vista rants are not only boring but kind of a sad proof that the author has nothing new to say. Sure vista was not like switching from windows 95 to XP (and I knew quite a few people that made that jump) however it is the best MS OS to date, especially in its 64 bit incarnation. I'm using 5 different operating systems at any given time, every single one of them is different and for a different purpose. I feel like it's a waste of time setting up servers on anything else than bsd/unix, video editing on mac is a blast and gaming is absolutely fabulous on vista... so what exactly is the point of this rant here? Did you by any chance mean to say "I was right, you were wrong...?
I could debunk pretty much any of the points stated above (except the ready/capable program which was microsoft giving in to oem's - STUPID !!!) but seriously, noone wants to read this anymore.
As far as windows is concerned, it's a simple choice really, either your hardware can deal with vista or it can't, if it can't stick to XP, it's stable, it's safe, it'll do what you need it to do.

I used GNU/Linux, I dont need windows XP or windows Vista

Poor Joe, he gets all this flak for writing about the failures of Vista. To all of you who think he's boring: at least he's informing those who may not have such information. That's a lot better than the hype coming from Micro$oft and the fanboy whines coming from the shills here.

Playing mp3 file:
C2D T5500 + Vista = 25% CPU utilisation
ancient AMD K6-III 400MHz +Win98SE/Mandriva Linux = 4% CPU utilisation
No more comments!
Vista? No, thanks!

I have absolutely no problems whatsoever with any modern game, application or hardware devices in Vista x64.

Performance all round is better than it was when I ran XP.

Then again, I am not attempting to run Vista on an antiquated system - which is the root cause of many a frustrated Vista user. For lowend to medium spec machines, XP is without a doubt the best option.

For folk with 8GB RAM, Quad core CPU, 2.2TB HDD etc - Vista runs without fault :)

I share your views about Vista, it is based on a bad design and an unnecessary "diferent" mode of doing the same things XP does, or almost the same. This is the sickness of modern times: to force the introduction of new products without real need.

In Vista for basic users, files explorer, for instance is counterintuitive, no way to go fast to an upper level, no way to show pictures as thumbnails; Vista has terrible translations for other languages, and so on.

I went back to XP, no easy task in new PC's due the issue regarding hard disk drive -XP versions not always have the correct driver to detect the disk, but ths problem is solvable.

Best of all, now I have XP working with powerful hardware designed for Vista. A missile.

"For folk with 8GB RAM, Quad core CPU, 2.2TB HDD etc - Vista runs without fault :)"

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.

You have to buy new equipment if you intend to run anything Microsoft puts out as "new".

And they wonder why they're losing their markets.