Broken Windows

Apple has one version of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger, and it retails for $130. When they release Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, it will be the same.

Microsoft should remove the different versions of Windows Vista from the market and sell one product with all the features for $130. Effectively, sell everybody Windows Vista Enterprise for one price. If you have a low-powered home computer that is not on a network managed by Microsoft servers, and that can't run all the Windows Vista Enterprise software, well fine, the installer won't burder your system by installing every feature. But every purchaser should have a license to use all the features of Vista for the same $130.

People keep complaining about Vista...but in the end we all know that it will be the market leader, the standard, and a "pretty good OS." I'm tired of people acting like before the launch of Windows XP...and look at XP now. We need to stop comparing Windows to Mac because it's not exactly the same thing (you say how it differs with TV's, and it's true). We need to compare Windows Vista to Windows XP, and that's the only way we can see what reflects the company's performance. And so far, it seems like Microsoft is still doing a good job; the license numbers are actually meaningful.

I like Vista a lot, but I'm really beginning to dislike the fact that it's made by Microsoft. I got the business version through my school's MSDNAA agreement, and I've been using it with nary a hiccup. The problem comes when you recognize the baggage attached to it. The different versions, activiation hassle, and massive number of updates add unnecessary annoyances to what should be pleasant operating system experience. The bottom line is this: I'm enjoying my free copy of Vista, but I'm not convinced that it's worth the retail prices.

There he goes again. You're kidding, right? You're simply spreading FUD about Vista again. Here are the reasons:

1. Vista has one more SKU than XP. Want to count them? XP Home, XP Professional, XP MCE, XP Tablet PC Edition. With Vista, it's Vista Home Basic (equivalent of XP Home), Vista Home Premium (equivalent of XP MCE and XP Tablet PC), Vista Business (equivalent of XP Pro), Vista Ultimate, and Vista Enterprise. That's 4 vs. 5, if you count Enterprise edition.

2. Most people I know haven't had problems with Vista. Just ask Ed Bott. I use Vista Business myself and in my opinion, it's way better than XP. Not a single crash and the system rarely hangs.

3. In terms of security, Vista is better than even your beloved OS X.

4. It has a problems with hardware compatibility, which along with the FUD created by idiots has resulted in lower sales. After SP1, things should change.

5. This is not as simple as OS X. Apple creates software for one OEM and a few hardware manufacturers. For Microsoft, with every release the complexity of the entire system increases. Keeping that in mind, Vista is an amazingly solid release.

6. You obviously have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Once again, you've chosen to rely on blogs and news articles rather than on actual research and the result shows.

Once again you've chosen to write a story based on your sentiments rather than actual research. I'm sure this will appeal to the clippys and the macros and you've probably based your story on the experiences of such people. I don't know about the disconnect between Microsoft and its OEMs, but there's a clear disconnect between you and the real world. You live in a world built by Apple - the one where you think 2% is a good sample size. Unfortunately for you, it's not.

"If you think the Vista experience needs fixing, what would you want Microsoft to do?"

On a related note, if you think App.. err.. Microsoft Watch needs fixing, what would you do?

Mine is: Joe doesn't offer constructive criticism. He criticizes with the intention of making Apple shine with respect to Microsoft. Much of this criticism, however is not really valid, as a little fact checking will show. So, my suggestion, as I've already mentioned earlier is for Joe to do some research and fact checking before he writes controversial articles... and by fact checking, I don't mean talking to like minded people. I mean really checking facts.

I have to say, I've had less problems with Vista than with XP. I'm running on two year old harware; for the first time suspend works, and works quickly! My system hasn't slowed down over time! And the quick-search reduces so much complexity and allows me to gain so much productivity that I can't imagine going back.

Perhaps people's mileage varies, but my Experience with Vista has been far superior to any other OS.

"A successful operating system would create PC sales pull. Vista is anything but. Microsoft can spew off about license shipments all it wants—now more than 60 million for Vista—but counting means little when the majority of PCs ship with the operating system anyway."

Sorry, but more FUD. In an already saturated market, it's difficult for Vista to generate the same kind of excitement that Windows 95 did. This is not an indication of how bad the OS is, but in fact, is just an indication of how saturated the PC market is. Remember that the Mac market is about 5% in the US, which leaves a lot of room for growth.

Also, Mac owners are generally more fanatic about Apple and will rush out to buy anything that Apple makes.

One more reason is that Vista is sold in a lot more locations than OS X or even Windows 95, which is why you won't see people camping outside stores for it.

Regarding licenses, it's very difficult to measure actual sales because these products are sold through so many retail channels. The next best thing is to measure sales into the channel. You probably won't find anything wrong with it when you realize that this is how Apple measures sales.

I agree. Compared to Vista, XP sucks big time.

Win95 didn't create pull, XP didn't either. Sure, people went a little crazy on launch day for those but that was about it. By the next week it was business as usual and people just bought new machines when their old ones broke. It's the same today, no better no worse.

I am totally disagree to whatever you said and I am strongly agree to whatever reflections said.

So from all the responses like this a person with right mind quit writing and stop spreading FUD.

So looks like your countdown begins !!!

and by the way STOP COMPARING AN OS WITH 4% MARKET SHARE WITH AN OS WITH 90% MARKET SHARE. Don't waste our time.

It is always a good thing to know who is talking before paying attention to his words, even more so if they are SHILLS.
Marco : Chips: You know why, when you refer to MS with a dollar sign($), it conveys some annoyance to its (seemingly) fanboys?
Because they feel talked about.
That symbol describes exactly what Ms is-something which does not care for anything except extracting the biggest profit of us all. Also, the symbol denoted those who gain a living by defending MS. Trouble is, they’re betrayed by their subconscious. And they are apparently irritated by you and those who use the symbol. However, they are only masking their irritation with themselves (psychology of the first degree) proof of this is that you can be called “clips” or linux “linu$”-or whatever, and you are not offended. Why? Because it is not true. If it was true, you would be irritated.
In other words, what I mean is that every time you write M$, they feel alluded to and react to that. And, even though you said that they are just one, it is not so-they are just united in their reaction.
Remember, truth hurts.

reflections :Macro, I'm sure Joe gave you the license to write crap on his site. Using "M$" or "crApple" or even "Lunix" is derogatory. Just because its your computer and your keyboard shouldn't give you the right to write whatever nonsense you want. Using the same logic, I could even address your mom as a wh*re.

Marco : It was obvious a reaction was going to occur. I wrote it to prove my point. Action leads to reaction. If reflections was not a shill, he would not be offended. The trouble here is that he has not realised he is practically naked...and we are all looking.
Well, take it easy, reflections. We'll continue this another day. Bye

William : reflections, I totally fail how you can be derogatory about a multinational company. Are you saying that international companies have feelings like humans and can be hurt by someone using the $ sign instead of the letter S.
I am sorry, but I cannot believe you are comparing calling someones mother a wh*re and using a $ sign instead of the letter s in a company name.
If you feel as strong about MS as you do about your own mother then I suggest you need to speak to a therapist.

Macro, since you've copied messages from the other post and pasted them here, I'm doing the same:

"reflections, I totally fail how you can be derogatory about a multinational company. Are you saying that international companies have feelings like humans and can be hurt by someone using the $ sign instead of the letter S."

OK. Do countries have feelings? Why do you respect your country then? Also, one disrespects people too because they have feelings. So, your crazy logic fails. How do you expect to come across as being unbiased if your argument starts by referring to Microsoft as "M$" or the "evil giant".

"I am sorry, but I cannot believe you are comparing calling someones mother a wh*re and using a $ sign instead of the letter s in a company name."

I was responding to macro's statement that it's his keyboard and he can do whatever he likes, you idiot.

"If you feel as strong about MS as you do about your own mother then I suggest you need to speak to a therapist."

The same goes for you.

I have to agree with reflections. This article sounds like the author had to punch the clock and crank out his required column but couldn't think of anything new to say, so decided to bash Vista yet again. I've heard this tired rhetoric a bit too often and it has never jibed with my experience.

I've been using Vista Ultimate for a little over three months now and love it. It is rock solid, gorgeous to look at, never crashes, all my over 100 programs run on it flawlessly - and I'm using the 64-bit version of Vista, running 24/7 with mission critical work-related custom software, VMWare virtual machines, etc. etc.

I remember these same types of articles when 95 and XP came out with exactly the same sorts of complaints. They are about as pertinent now as they were then - namely, not at all. In three years when your writing columns bitching about Windows 7 (or whatever the next version of Windows ends up being called), you'll be saying how bad Windows 7 is and that Vista is a "pretty darn good operating system, so why switch?"

The more things change, the more they stay the same - and I'm talking about the tech reporting industry.

Vista is like the lump of instant mashed potatoes on a cafeteria serving tray. Everybody gets it, most will eat some of it, and a few might even like the strange metallic taste with undertones of dish soap.

And like those lumps of potato, it seems many PC users are dumping Vista in the trash and "downgrading" to XP or even W2K. Microsoft claims it "sells" a copy of Vista every time Dell or HP preload it on a HD. But even a lowly cafeteria worker knows that putting something on a tray doesn't mean people really like it, or would ask for second helpings.

If you look at the history of Vista as a development project, it's obvious that not much love went into its design or implementation. It ruined many careers at Microsoft, and like those potatoes, the bad taste lingers on.

Once again, he's either a completely bias person, hates Microsoft, or some other unknown reason because he never has anything good to say about Microsoft.

I am in total agreement with your comments.
I am a 30 year (I wish it were 30 year old!) computer veteran but neither I nor any of my colleagues can make this OS behave.

Here are the main issues we agree upon:
� Unpredictable behaviour. Something works one day, then the next day poof, it�s dead.

� Intrusive UAC. Whilst I understand the underlying need for better protection who is running this machine? Me or Microsoft.

� Broken networking. It would have been very simple for Microsoft to ship the OS with differing security policies. The default policies are quite good for a corporate environment but totally wrong for a home environment if you happen to have some other machines (an older PC, a laptop, a media center) and are trying to make a simple internal network.

� Incorrect anti-piracy implementation. I upgraded my BIOS and my activated, fully legal copy dropped dead on me. What business does Microsoft have in the BIOS version? I have no issue with the fact that the OS needs to be protected from pirates. The correct implementation is to read the serial number of the motherboard instead of the BIOS version. I have advised the BIOS manufacturer to pass this on to other users BTW.

� Printing. Extremely difficult to get out a sheet of paper from a server printer or a peered shared printer. Like pulling teeth. I know that the usual defence is �But it�s the manufacturers responsibility to provide the right drivers!�. True, but the OS should help, not hinder the installation by telling you what is going on (or in this case not going on).

Not acceptable.

i've been frequenting this site for 2 whole weeks, and the bias is pretty obvious.

unsubscribed

Joe Wilcox;
Quote;
The reasons for the Vista disaster are simple:

* Vista introduces too much complexity compared to Windows XP.

* Windows XP is a pretty good operating system.

* Microsoft had the wrong priorities.

* Vista shipped before it was ready.

* OEM and Microsoft Vista priorities are out of synch.
------------------------------------------------

Micro$oft could have Just released an XP SP3 intregrated and made just as much money as they are doing now, so why Vista?

If you look at the reasons Joe Wilcox gave, he is right on the money, but perhaps he did not go into enough details as to why those things happened.

* Vista shipped before it was ready.

Absolutely it did. But why with 5 or 6 years to work on it and a cost of 6 billions dollars with thousand of coders working on it all that time, did we end up with the Train Wreak Vista?

About 14 months before Vista shipped, the code based on XP in the "Longhorn" betas, was scaped. The name was changed to "Vista" and based on 2003 server code. Still, 2003 server code is very stable on will run on lower end computers, not requiring much of a hardware increase over XP. So now the time frame has changed. But still, at this point MS needed to "rewrite 60% of the 2003 code" and add features to Vista. Now the question should be why did they need to do all this?

The answer is they made a deal with the RIAA and MPAA and others in the Media companies to interweave DRM into the core of the Vista OS.

* Microsoft had the wrong priorities.

Yes, the priority of Vista was no longer the end user, but rather the DRM that was being added as a revenue stream and further way to add more control to MS Windows. So when the custermor comes last, you have a problem.

* Vista introduces too much complexity compared to Windows XP.

The complexity came from the DRM. In order to disguise that fact, Aero was added to make end users think that was why the OS ran slow on some computers.

*This is not Joe's point but mine. Software incompatiblity.

Vista just has too many problems with old software that users need to install. And most of the problems, oddly enough, are related to, audio, video, and cd/dvd burning apps. I strongly believe that the real reason that most of the programs in those categories don't work, is because of the baked in DRM in Vista. Now many people will speak up and say that DRM is only going affect the HDDVD players, but that has been proven not to be true.

The cost of upgrading software programs after buying a new computer with Vista on it, has caused many people to wipe Vista from their hard drives and replace it with XP.

Marco;
You knew I could not help myself and not comment on Vista. If it saves a few people from buying into and wasting their money on Vista, it will be worth it.

reflections
I totally agree with you.
Plus Joe you keep on comparing Vista with ME.
They are not anywhere near the same and you know it !
That is just a cheap sensationalistic shot.
As you yourself said "I really don't want to beat on Microsoft about Vista yet again."
I would like to ask you one question: "When haven't you been beating on Vista??"
Stop whipping the dead cat Joe !!!
I have said before and I will say it again, you are (closet wise) against microsoft and Vista.
This weekly FUD bit, is just to try and stir up arguement and that's all it is, sensationalism at it's worst.
Your boss Scot Peterson started on against Vista before it even went to RTM, and since then you have continued it.
Be a proper journalist and report the news stop trying to make it up yourself.

I don't have too many major gripes considering Vista has been out less than a year. However, I am disappointed in how much of a lack there is to my Ultimate versions. It does not feel very Ultimate yet compared to the other SKUs. Another issue I would like resolved is a better, more seamless transition from the desktop to the "cloud" like Apple does with iLife. The Windows Live + Windows Vista (aka software+services) plan is really clunky at the moment. Also, I think if MS utilized Silverlight-type interface on the desktop, it would streamline the interface, lower the memory overhead, and overall provide for a better user experience. I look forward to seeing if they get their act together soon. If not, I can always lock-in with Apple instead of locking-in with MS. Gotta love options, or lack thereof, when you're close to broke after buying all these "upgrades".

Joe Wilcox
I loved the "Vista Home Premium Ultimate" on one your previous posts. Shame on you, you should know better". In fact.... you do !!

I have two brothers who bought Vista, one hates it, the other uninstalled it and put XP back on. I'm no fan either at the moment.
That said, they hated XP when it first came out (as did I for the first year or two). By the time I bought a computer with XP on it, every device & software worth having was 'made for XP', and things had long since stopped working easily for my win98 machine. And at the moment, every device that's worth it still says "Made for XP". In a year or two, it'll be Vista, and things will stop working with XP, and all of a sudden, XP won't be 'good enough', and Vista will.

I'm so fed up with waiting for Vista to SIMPLY ALLOW ME TO GET TO WORK!

There is always something running in the background.

How many times a day does Vista simply hang with the cursor spinning not allowing any input? This happens to me maybe 10-20 times a day. I sit and I wait and I wait while all windows refuse to accept any type of input. I get up and walk around, go grab a snack, get something to drink, come back and it still will not accept input into any window!

The cursor just sits spinning!

This is on a brand new very powerful Dell Vista installed computer.

I almost picked up the computer and tossed it out the window today. Just in time I realized that it's not the computer, it's the operating system that is driving me frickin crazy!

Add up all the time I waste everyday waiting for Vista to simply allow me to get to work and I'm sure it's significant.

I HATE VISTA AND I ACTUALLY LOVE MICROSOFT & THEIR DEVELOPER PRODUCTS!

Joe,

I can assure you, that if the hardware vendors correct BIOS firmware, and provide capable and certified drivers, the Vista experience is WOW.

Not because of what it looks like propped up on the table with a huge monitor (to compensate for something..) like the Apple Socialite elitists -

WOW because it just works. WOW because you dont have to install a whole tirade of uncertified Microsoft crapware to "secure" the machine. WOW because the firewall works & integrates seamlessly and I dont have to understand how to configure ports or services. Just answer a simple question & KAZAM - its all done.

WOW because Windows update works like a charm & the machine I installed for my mother over 6 months ago remains secure & virus free. WOW because I can backup my mothers machine in 30mins post installation & recover in 30mins if she does still manage to screw it up.

WOW because on my Tablet I now have drive encryption out of the box & I dont have to (and this was the NON-WOW killer in the past) rely on badly written non-Microsoft software to destroy my machine & productivity.

Buy Vista + Office 2007 + AV, thats it - no need for anything else. Then get yourself a reasonable machine with the "Windows Vista" sticker & if it does not work give it back & try another.

My desktop has been humming from day 1 (Vista Ultimate 64Bit Due Core), but I had some issues with performance on my Toshiba Tecra M4 resolved with a very recent BIOS update. (it used to take off -with the fan going whoosh..., but now it only flies ;-) Point is, the Tablet was always WOW capable, but needed a BIOS upgrade supplied by THE VENDOR to create the experience.

Oh Yea - Joe. Just wanted to say that Steve Jobbs is so proud of you.

Your Latte sipping MAC loving tree hugging socialite hippie friends are also sooo proud of you & even prop you up when they introduce you to their friends. Hey guys, this is Joe - you know - the guy bashes Microsoft.

You my friend will never change or shape the world. Bill Gates created an industry where there were once but a few nerds, some wires and three cups of weak tea. Microsoft is the golden goose that lays the eggs & EVERYTHING follows.

and You Joe - unfortunately - just chicken shit...

Ok this article is just too much! ;)

Lets begin:

"Apple has one version of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger....When they release Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, it will be the same."

"....and it retails for $130"

That's a good one to open with - that joke just writes itself.

"Effectively, sell everybody Windows Vista Enterprise for one price."

Um, you do know what Vista Enterprise is right?! Vista Enterprise is just Vista Business for Volume License Agreements. The added extras are listed here, but the core product is the same:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/enterprise/features.mspx

(You probably meant to say Vista Ultimate, because Business/Enterprise doesn't include the extra multimedia features that Home Premium offers)

"massive number of updates"

Hmm....a couple dozen small updates versus over 400MB and SEVERAL reboots worth for Windows XP SP2....let me see which one is easier and less of a hassle.

"Vista Home Premium (equivalent of....XP Tablet PC)"

Actually, if you're going on par, Vista Business would be the equivalent. All the "Premium" Vista versions include Tablet PC support, that is to say, any version except Starter and Home Basic, but Business (including Enterprise), and Ultimate are the only ones with domain-join support. XP Media Center Edition and Tablet PC edition were both based off of XP Pro, but MCE didn't have domain-join whereas Tablet PC, being marketed more towards businesses, did. That said, you are correct in saying that Home Premium includes the Tablet PC features also.

"Microsoft claims it "sells" a copy of Vista every time Dell or HP preload it on a HD"

Funny, but the 60 million copies they sold look pretty good next to the previous versions of Windows on such a saturated market. Oh, and sit yourself back down before you think to argue against this point because sales into the channel were ALWAYS counted the same way.

"Intrusive UAC."

That's the funniest argument I hear, especially considering the FUD coming from Apple's TV ads spouting the same thing. On OS X, even when you're logged in as an administrator, it STILL asks you to type in a password for privilege escalation. Vista doesn't - it knows you've got administrative rights (or not) when you log in.

"About 14 months before Vista shipped, the code based on XP in the "Longhorn" betas, was scaped.
The name was changed to "Vista" and based on 2003 server code."

Considering who this is coming from, this is a total lie. Windows Server 2003 code was used from the beginning. Microsoft always uses the latest codebase to base new products, and Windows Server 2003 was already code-complete at the time. Do your homework before you post nonsense. On second thought, no internet access for you until it's done!

"I strongly believe that the real reason that most of the programs....don't work, is because of the baked in DRM in Vista."

Sorry, but that's just truthiness. Likewise, thinking Linux will be ready for home users this century also AIN'T GONNA MAKE IT SO. You should take up the job as understudy for Lyons over at Fox'rbes.

"Now many people will speak up and say that DRM is only going affect the HDDVD players, but that has been proven not to be true."

For once you're right - it affects BluRay players too. Aside from that, it hasn't been proven to affect the performance at all. In fact, when you compare the required computing performance to decrypt AACS and other high-bitrate HD media streams while maintaining digital protection, Vista actually fares quite. And where is the legal BluRay and HD-DVD support on Linux again?...

"I think if MS utilized Silverlight-type interface on the desktop"

Define "Silverlight-type interface". Silverlight is an API and browser plugin for .NET applications based on several different programming and scripting languages. Surely you don't mean that you want the entire OS as a programming IDE, like a command prompt on crack....Oooooh, you must mean based on .NET Framework 3.0....Hmm....methinks you should read Microsoft's whitepapers on .NET Framework 3.0 integration in Windows Vista. .NET Framework 3.5 is right around the bend, but Silverlight 1.0 isn't even out yet, and it's not even based on .NET Framework 3.0. Silverlight 1.1 is still in alpha and it will be though.

Duly noted, Waethorn. I was referring to Silverlight 1.1 and its approach towards .NET and actually integrating the apps and the framework more seamlessly, like the browser plugin. Thanks for the correction. However, I am banking on .NET Framework 3.5 versus 3.0, and the utilization of LINQ more deeply. I would love a command prompt on crack, at least it would be more efficient (and accessible). Oh, well. I just wish they would write something from the ground up again, like they did in the old days, instead of re-hashing the same old (or slightly revised) codebase. MS needs to replace the aging NT base.

Waethorn said,

"Apple has one version of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger....When they release Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, it will be the same."
"....and it retails for $130"

Ok guys let's stop this Myth about Mac's costing $130. The new iMacs cost $1500. I can buy 2 PC's on equivalent hardware running Vista Ultimate DSP with that amount plus i would have some change to spare...

Well, I've been a self-employed computer consultant for 20 years, and I have to agree that I haven't seen the level of customer dissatisfaction with Vista since Windows ME came out, and I think that is what the article is referring too.

I've had many clients pay me to strip Vista off their new computers and install XP in its place. So, Microsoft may be able to legally consider the copy of Vista they received as a valid license sale, but the truth is that it is an unused license. I pulled Vista off my personal primary machine after 2 months because of the aggravation and incompatibilities I continually ran into with it. I need to get work done, and all the additional hassle introduced by Vista did not improve my security one bit over my XP installation, and that was the key. The additional aggravation of UAC, etc. in Vista would be worth it if there was significant improvement in the security over XP, but it didn't. Since my antivirus, spyware, etc. programs are all free, it didn't save me any money either.

Neither I nor my clients are willing to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars replacing scanners, printers, software, etc. that won't work properly with Vista when the experience of the Vista OS doesn't offer enough improvement to make the expense worth it. I had two clients that were faced with replacing a lot of older hardware and software to work with Vista and they just decided to buy a Mac instead and buy things that were compatible with the Mac and avoided Vista altogether. It was their choice, not mine!

Once again, Joe Wilcox's analysis is pure gold. Microsoft should have only offered Vista in 64-bit versions, allowing users to upgrade their hardware to run it, although I understand no business would ever do such a thing. But if Microsoft had spent half the time on reducing Vista's minimum resource requirements as they did on piracy prevention, they might have pulled it off. Instead, Vista — along with Office 2007 — pushed me over the edge and into the loving arms of GNU/Linux, where I'm ecstatic.

I'm always the "early adoptee" guy, and when you use any Microsoft product as one, you're "always" getting short-changed, as with Vista. MY FIRST HINT of trouble was working with the Office betas. The Microsoft Office dev team took most of the customer suggestions and treated them as spam. SECOND, they pulled a crazy and expensive stunt by going with MS-OOXML, which is a nightmare by directing promoting vendor lock-in. THIRD, they completely crapped on ODF, an ISO-standard office data format. FOURTH, the Vista EULA is insane and even after revision it's conveniently vague about its device-dependent license. FINALLY, they had four main versions of Vista when they should have had only one. Install that one and at the beginning ask the user: "Do you want the 'Lite' setup or the 'Kitchen Sink'?"

I DID have to upgrade my system, at significant cost to run Vista. I DID lose my new HP printer, thanks to neither HP nor Microsoft writing a driver for it (to this day). Fortunately, I've downgraded my old system back to XP and am now using it for a few background tasks. My new 'Vista' machine is running Fedora 7, where I spend 95% of my computing time.

I had no idea what I was missing.

"I would love a command prompt on crack"

they already have that - it's called PowerShell, and it kicks ass!

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/management/powershell/default.mspx

"Ok guys let's stop this Myth about Mac's costing $130."

the quote that I repeated wasn't about the systems - it was referring to the fact that Apple OS X version upgrades are just paid service packs and are, at best, only evolutionary upgrades. Jaguar was out less than 4 years ago before the next version came out (Panther - released Oct. 2003) and they stopped putting out updates for it. That's some profitable lifecycle there! Considering that a Windows operating system costs approximately the same with a new system (less than $150CDN for Windows Vista Home Premium, as was the price of Windows XP Media Center Edition) sure puts Apple's overinflated prices in perspective. Looking at the much longer lifecycle of a Windows makes it a much more attractive option.

G
I love (joking) your description of your computer "This is on a brand new very powerful Dell Vista installed computer."
What a load of crap, otherwise known here as FUD !
For a person who supposedly likes MS programmer software and you don't know why you are waiting.
You have got to be kidding !!
What a piece of garbage "a very powerful computer" that is a hell of a description, notice folks that "G" stealthily put in the name of "Dell" to try and make this story real rather than fiction.
Give me a break will ya !!

I can't speak for the market as a whole, because I'm certainly not in frequent contact with PC users in large numbers. However, based on my personal experience with Windows Vista and my recollection of my experience with Windows XP in the same post-launch period, I can say the following:

* Windows Vista was far more compatible with my existing hardware. After upgrading to XP from Windows ME (shudder), a scanner, a TV tuner card and initially even my webcam were totally knocked out! I had to manually download drivers for my sound card and other key devices. This time around, all device drivers were either automatically recognised or rapidly procured from Windows Update -- I personally had to do nothing.

* Windows Vista performs, comparatively, better on my existing hardware. Frankly, all this nonsense about minimum hardware requirements is ridiculous. At least the MHR of 1024MB RAM actually suffices this time around (unlike the XP spec of 256MB). Even today, my Vista installation boots noticeably faster on my (ex)dual boot machine, logs on in a fraction of the time (finally Windows offers out of the box a relatively simple way to block unwanted startup programs) and so on. General performance lags only slightly -- to be expected from any major Windows Update, from my experience.

* I prefer the look and "feel" of the new OS. And to be perfectly honest, I don't mind having to upgrade my video card in order to eliminate window rendering glitches and the like that dogged my XP experience.

* Windows Update is seamless and has been as long as I can remember running Windows. Why the fuss, people? For such an OS with such a massive user base and thus prime fodder for malware and the like, to suggest that updates and security patches should not be regularly released is absurd. Ubuntu Linux, by contrast, inundated me with updates from day one. As far as security goes, my home PC virus/malware experience stands at O under Vista.

* Compared to XP, my Vista reliability experience has been slightly inferior but nonetheless steadily improving. Compared to my torrid first few months with XP (I would have ditched it if I didn't feel the need to have the latest OS installed and for the fact my alternative was returning to Win ME), it has been excellent.

* Stories of people "paying" to return to XP also amuse me somewhat. The very fact that these people cannot do this themselves would suggest to me that they are simply insufficiently "tech-savvy" to cope with the numerous UI-level changes incorporated, for better or worse, in this Windows release. Phenomenan explained.

* I have recently reformatted my XP hard drive and boot to Windows Vista as my sole OS. I am (mostly) highly satisfied with this decision.

Okay so, I'm only one user. And to be honest, Vista does undeliver in several ways I don't have the time to elaborate on. It can be annoying. But instead of this irritating and irresponsible FUD-fest, may I suggest a useful journalistic initiative such as:

POLL: As a Windows Vista user, are you satisfied with your experience with the new Microsoft OS, bearing in mind that it is a major upgrade?

YES/NO

...and then we could really talk about the success of this OS (regardless of volume licensing and its "inevitable uptake").

Vista is not "good enough" I upgraded to Vista mainly because I received a free copy from Microsoft for participating in there developer's webcast promotion. The only thing that that Vista offers me that was not part of XP is Spotlight, I mean the tightly integrated search feature. It is wonderful. And that's about it. Vista is pretty, but it sucks the life out of my GPU. It is secure, but EVERY time that I open my Videos folder, I have to tell UAC to let DivX connect to the web to check for updates. Until these last to updates this week, it took longer for Vista to calculate how long it was going to take to copy a file than it took to copy the file. Its is a bloated and over rated OS that has few cool features that needs a lot more horse power to run that OS X or Linux, even a version of Linux running Beryl and/or Compiz. And in the end, both of those OSes are just as, if not prettier than Vista. They are currently just as secure even if that security is because a lack of interest because of their market share.

I have been using Vista Ultimate on 6 machines since it came out.

Of the machines, all of them are at least a year old, with the oldest being 2 years. Each machine has at least 1gb of ram.

I'll admit, that each machine could use at least 2gb and dual core processors, but I also felt that same when I was running XP.

Regarding UAC, turn it off. If you are in a situation where you need it, then fine, but if you are the only one using your computer and you don't trust yourself, then maybe you shouldn't be using a computer. So you turn UAC off, and then you get the annoying 'your computer is vulnerable,' or something like that - turn that off to. When the security bubble pops up, there is an option to where you can click and chose how Vista alerts you to problems, turn the alert off.

I will admit that I have had some video card issues, where I go to a website and my computer restarts, but with the most recent ATI update that problem has stopped.

OSX is currently doing very well, but I remember the first few years of its existence and it was not pleasant to try to run anything outside of the standard Mac software, I remember huge issues with running online apps.

I'm not praising Vista, but it isn't nearly as bad as most of you are covering it, in fact I would say that its potential still isn't being realized.

People comment about the need to buy new hardware to run Vista, guess what, to run the newest version of OSX well, you won't be putting it on your 3 year old Mac.

I like both OSX and Vista and if I had the money I'd have 2 comps running OSX and 2-3 running Vista.

I've been using Vista for a few months now and I have no problem with it. I'm pretty sick of Microsoft Watch just complaining about how Microsoft is doing everything wrong and how we should all go to Apple instead. It's been a nice couple months MSW, but I think it's time for me to be going.

I have always thought that Microsoft has made good to fairly good OSes and when Mac people (5-10 years ago) would say how "Mac is the way", etc., I would kind of roll my eyes. I wasn't exactly a Microsoft apologist but I thought that it was a solid platform with a great software selection. After buying a new dual-core PC in April of this year with Vista Home Premium loaded on it, I can honestly say I wish I bought a Mac. Vista is a horrible experience: it's the biggest example of software bloat in the history of software, it's sluggish, and even most of the supposed "Wow" features are only slightly amusing gimmicks. I was expecting much more.

It's easy to point at the end result of a company's product assembly line and say, "That's really bad...make it better!" But I think everyone's missing the real point of why a product is bad in the first place. Is it lack of clarity of purpose? Nope...everyone at Microsoft knows they need to innovate and enhance their strengths. Is it lack of ability? Nein...Microsoft has historically produced some outstanding products so they know how to do it. Then what is it?

The products that a company produces reflect its internal business model. In this case, Microsoft is starting to release products which are subpar and do not meet the overall needs of its customer base. This, to me, is indicative of problems inside the company.

I truly believe that software development has to happen within a competitive environment (not company against company as much as dev team against dev team). Developers could care less about what another company is doing. Most are there for their paycheck and the longevity/market position of the company is irrelevant to them. But....give them some peer-to-peer competition internally and they turn into wolves who are bent on outperforming their colleagues.

This is where Google has it right. If you study their development model, Google allows its dev team to choose what they want to work on and they build a competitive environment where status and prestige is related to an individual's quality of output and innovation.

Really, Vista is just an indicator that Microsoft has lost its way. It's a huge corporation with unreal bureacracy and a lack of internal drive for innovation. I have no doubt that requirements for Vista (and Windows "7") are being crafted by Systems Analysts and handed to developers to code. The SAs aren't the drivers of innovation, developers are. Take the devs off the leash and let them define products specs (within a framework of oversight and peer review) and you'll see great things happen. I've witnessed this effect over and over again.

Don't believe me? Who wrote some of the most influential code and products in Microsoft's history? Gates and the original dev team. It's true that Gates didn't write a line of Windows version X in his life, but he was in the trenches with the team that did. The original team of developers at Microsoft in the late 70's/early 80's all were owners of the company and drove product development. This led to outstanding products relative to the technological capabilities at the time. They were driven. I don't think the devs at MS are driven today...not in the way I'm talking about.

Over the past few years, we've also read story after story about how the real talent at MS has made the Exodus out of Egypt look like a trickle in comparison. Talented devs want to be allowed to shine and have the freedom to innovate. The fact that most of the real talent at MS has left speaks volumes about their internal problems.

I'm not happy with Vista. It's doggy ... there, I said what nobody else will say. So I uninstalled it and put XP onto my nice Alienware laptop ( Windows experience # = 4.7 ). Now my laptop is nice and snappy.

What I'm most unhappy about relating to Vista, though, is that it is a modern Microsoft product. That means that I simply do not trust that Vista has *my* interests/needs as a number 1 priority - it has Microsoft's and the RIAA/MPAA interests ( and some government interests? ) as number 1. I do not trust Vista, I think it is spyware and crippleware, plain and simple. There's something else that people don't have the cajones to say.

Keep up the good work, Joe, I've loved your blog since you started ( well, it took a few weeks to grok your point of view ). Don't let the shills and fanbois get you down.

Bill

Not every Machead feels the need to run out and buy every new $130 version of OS X the day it ships. I know people who are still using Jaguar from 2002.

When people buy the new versions, they're not giving up features from the old versions, i.e., they generally expect their apps and their print drivers, etc. to still work. They just want the additional features. For those who don't feel the need for the new bells and whistles, the older versions work just fine. While most new apps that ship today for OS X are rated for 10.3.9 or better, many will still work in 10.2.

Also remember that every new Mac, like every new PC, ships with the latest version of the OS. For Mac there's no extra charge. For Vista, it's a little bit different.

I agree that Vista is a disapppointment. I have used every version of Microsoft operating systems from DOS to windows to Vista.

This new OS offers so little improvement for the user experience. Transparent windows. Big deal. That is supposed to be a "Wow" experience? More like a "Duh".

I gave the new Office a 6 six week try before I finally downgraded to the older Office so I could get something done. The new ribbon eats up screen space and does not offer a productivity improvement to the experienced user. It actually slows you done tremendously.

I can't see anything that Microsoft has improved. They claim the security is better. How come they still are offering security patches?

My XP systems are faster and don't have security issues. What does Vista offer? I am still waiting to find the "Wow" experience.

This is getting really old...

Just how lame as a technician is the author?

I am tired of these psuedo techs - these posers - who allege that they "understand" technology and can't seem to mouse their way out of a wet sack!

I mean just how dang lame are you guys? How spoiled have you become and just how ridiculous are your expectations of anything - much less a PC?

And lay off of the Apple does it right crap - I mean... given how Apple's platform is closed off and limited to so few things, it isn't even close to a relevant comparison!

I have been building, selling, supporting and using Windows Vista since Nov 2006, and we love it - it is vastly superior to XP SP2/SP2c. Vista has been nearly flawless on our builds and a delight to use.

I just don't get you all - I can't see the where you all are on this issue and wonder just how lame your thinking and skills are.

I know this much, I would hire you as an intern, much less a basic PC tech.

Weak...weak..weak! That's how I see you to be.

There are success stories and some not so successful. In my case I spent three hours with Microsoft on the line and Vista never completed an upgrade from XP pro. The only way MS recommended was a clean install. This isn't acceptable.

Between this type of issue and unnecessary hardware
vista experience isn't worth it. My company is going to go ahead with a pilot to see how to image/ upgrade/ whats best but I personally am staying with XP. One machine which I had to upgrade was replaced with a MAC for the first time. The main reason I switched was I don't like the direction MS is heading.

I do hope they get it right but from working with MS for years I see a turn away from the customer and I don't trust them any more. I truly hope they can turn the semi-truck around and provide people cars again.

Steve

I am not going to run Windows Vista until they come out with a Windows XP Theme and give me my darn button bar back.

All previous versions of Windows had backwards compatibile themes. Even in XP I turn off the horribly limiting and un-useful new style XP interface and set it back to CLASSIC MODE! Why hide icons in the control panel? To keep things simple, no, its a retarded decision back then and the new Vista interface is poorly thought out as well. I can take the new security measures but on all Vista installs I have done, guess what, I have turned off UAC, lol. In the default interface of Vista one has to click 400 links to get to network settings to lets say, change an IP address.

All in all, someone at Microsoft had way to much time on their hands. All the changes that were done in vista were only done for the sake of change. All of the user interface changes are all steps backwards in ease of use, functionality, and usability. I am not someone afraid of change. The change from 95/98 to XP was great.

Give me my XP theme and my darn button bar back in Vista, and I will run it. Until then, see ya. The totalitarian communist enforced interface of Vista should be put back into the gulag.

To support so many different kinds of hardware configurations and software configurations the different skews are necessary. Although I do agree it is confusing for someone making a purchase. Basically you have IT departments that do not want bloat or any jazz, just security and frameworks to program against, then you have an uncle that has a 5 year old computer and wants an OS that will be supported for another few years and then you have the guys that want it all. It seems you might live in a very tight community of writers and basic users who really want simplicity, but the average IT guy actually wants more options in configuration and programming options.

To me the biggest problem for Vista is the computer makers. Companies pile on unwanted bloatware when vista does all the stuff out of the box. So basically users get a vista machine with Roxio and Google desktop and don't know what to do, but that is the fault of the PC makers not vista. MS really needs to lay down some laws for PC makers and make them go through QA tests before they release a system with their OS on it.

SORRY JOE VISTA SINGS!!!
I HAVE BEEN USING VISTA ULTIMATE FROM BETA 2 ONWARD.
YOU MICROSOFT HATERS CANNOT STOP THE BULLET TRAIN. IT HAS LEFT THE STATION AND YOUR IN THE DUST!!!
WE ARE FINDING NOW THAT THE POWER SUPPLIES IN THE 300-500 WATT ARE NOT DOING THE JOB!!! ONE NEEDS 850 WATTS OR BETTER BECAUSE OF THE HARD DRIVES
POWER DEMANDS.IF ONE HAS 4 OR MORE HARD DRIVES BIGGER WATTAGE POWER SUPPLY. THIS CAUSES THE 5 VOLT TO BECOME UNSTABLE CAUSING SYSTEM CRASHES.
THIS COMES FROM INTEL SUPPORT IN PORTO RICO!!!

**********NOT A VISTA FAILURE******************

**********POWER SUPPLY UNDER POWERED!!!!!******

GAMERS HAVE SHOWN THE WAY!!!!! LOTS OF VIDEO MEMORY AND THE LIKE!!!
PC'S ARE NOT FOR THE MASSES OF THE UNWASHED AND INEPT!!!!

ONE NEEDS TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

Vista is definitely better than XP. It took me some learning curve, but after 3 months of using it, I'm now pretty sure that Vista is better than XP at any aspect.

I believe I'm still subscribed to this RSS feed. I mean, seriously, this guy has nothing good to say about Microsoft (he seems so pro sony and pro apple). I thought this was microsoft-watch.com, not microsoft-bash.com.

Also, what the hell was up with the post from the other day regarding facebook friends?? like WTF is that? Come on...

Joe, please start writing some good (at least half-balanced) articles or I will be removing you from my RSS feeds.

As a network administrator I have worked with several OS's and can tell you the simple reason why Windows rocks. It's a simple, intuitive OS for the simpletons (aka end users)
Give the end users Linux, Unix or a Mac and they are totally lost. I cannot imagine my end users learning how to use a Mac or Linux in this lifetime (we won't even mention the beloved Unix command line)
Keeping this and the proliferation of Malware/Spyware, in mind, it is easy to see why MS enhanced the security features in Vista which prompts the user to make an informed decision whether to run a software or use a feature.
Incidentally it is the popularity of Windows that makes it a target for hackers. The reason Unix, Linux and Mac are 'secure' is because no one wastes their time trying to hack into these systems since there are so few ( a couple hundred?) of these around.
Furthermore, if you are a 30 year IT veteran and are having problems with Vista then it just shows your lack of real IT knowledge and lets you know that its time to retire.

You Microsoft lovers astound me -- talk about mass Stockholm syndrome. I have XP at work and it sucks more each time a security patch is applied. Shades of 98. That is the pattern of MS OSes; reliability and performance degrade with time and the endless patches.

Thank goodness I can retreat to my OSX/Linux environment at home and laugh at all you virus-prone chumps. Want a good computing experience at a great price? Buy a Dell notebook or desktop loaded with Ubuntu. You'll be up and running in under a minute, out of the box, and it just gets better from there.

Will you do it? Will you even respect what I have just written? Probably not, that's the way of the Stockholm syndromist.

Thanks, Joe, for de-gilding the latest MS t*rd.

To H3:

My expectations for a company the size of MS and enough treasure to rival Fort Knox is that it can deliver what it promises. Just look at the features which were promised in Longhorn but cut before Beta 1. In addition to that, Vista took some signficant steps backwards on basic functionality: File copy is horrendous. Even with the hotfix released earlier this week it still takes way too long to perform file copies. Since you love Vista, maybe the unemployed developer who coded that subsystem in Vista is available for you to interview.

Speaking of that...based on the angst in your post, I wouldn't have you as a client let alone a boss.

I just love articles like this! And seeing the words "fanboys" and "schills" just gives me goosebumps.

So, the author likes me better than Windows. He has that right.

It's funny, reading all this makes me think that Gary Kildall would find all of this OS-bickering sort of funny. (Who? Go read: http://www.ddj.com/184410428)

I just bought an Acer laptop because it was cheap. ($400 special at WalMart) could have gotten it for $350 later at CompUSA. It came with Vista Home Basic. I'm in Vista maybe 2% of the time. The rest of the time I am in 3 partitions: 1 SuSE 10.2 linux, 1 Knoppix hard drive install, and 1 Knoppix in a larger partition for customizing a Live CD version.

I'm assuming the low price is because Acer is seeing real market resistance to Vista Home Basic. If you are at all handy with repartitioning the hard drive, you can't get a cheaper Linux laptop, and SuSE sees all the hardware, including wireless and bluetooth!

Any comment in this thread that compares OSs should be deleted unless the author of the comment has used the compared OSs for at least a 6-month period. It was so hard reading these comments - so little knowledge of the 'other sides' is evident, I cannot even begin to correct the perpetual madness.

I am responsible for my office's Windows server, network, and clients (and I'm a geologist/env. consultant), and I have used a Mac at home for almost 4 yrs. Each OS has its place. It really is that simple.

Simple facts:
- I have no interest in trying to get my co-workers to understand Vista benefits, other than the quick search. There WILL be UAC hell and this is a setting for which it is intended; I dread the day we buy a new PC. We're generally smart professionals here, but man, I'm afraid.
- It IS easier to maintain a Mac - without question.
- It IS easier to modify OS settings on a Mac - again without question. But at the end of the day, most people don't tweak their OSs, probably just people who read blogs like this.
- It is easier to add and remove software on a Mac. The registry must die.
- A Mac is more secure simply because it is a Mac. I don't care why. I care that a free AV solution is more than enough and that is not even needed. To eliminate the need to confirm that my Windows-using co-workers are 'protected' would be like living in a dream-world.
- Leopard will bring easier backup solutions than I am using now under Windows Server 2003 for our client machines. BTW, why do our Outlook backups fail on a regular basis? Why can't I easily pull a file off a backup tape drive? Why, despite endless hours and dollars setting up a backup system, are their quirks that ultimately derail good backups? Why is it like this even though we've had two, experienced, well-paid network consultants providing and setting up these 'solutions'? Why Why Why???
- I agree that neither Windows machines nor Macs are crash-prone these days. I also agree that both OSs have unexplainable quirks at times. But I firmly believe, through years of experience on each, that it's a fact that there are far more quirks on Windows.
- What each OS looks like is purely subjective, but eye candy can provide user benefits (i.e. Expose really is more functional than Flip 3D). And Expose, with all its candy, ran effectively years ago on hardware that Vista would choke on today. Which OS uses transparency more effectively, meaning an actual benefit to transparency?
- A new OS version on a Mac is generally faster on the same machine than the prior version. That's huge.
- Must not continue...

I am no Apple fanboy, trust me. The ads are maddening, the snobbery associated with it is tacky, and I don't even need such a well-designed machine. That list is my years-long experience. I only want to realize the benefit that technology is supposed to bring. Windows really makes that hard. My company spends ridiculous dollars and in-house man hours dealing with it. More dollars than the hardware tax of using Macs.

If I were Microsoft, I would be concerned of Mac OS X's evolution into a server-class system that will be more than appropriate for a small-medium-sized business. That train has left the station, and in a few years...

An interesting discussion on DRM in Vista?

"mfpmp.exe is sucking up 15% of my CPU time with un-DRM'd music on Windows Media Player." So maybe the DRM is Vista is doing a whole lot more than there just for HDDVD and Blueray. Its even affecting MP3 files.
forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1983309&SiteID=1

Also, of course;
www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

I can guarantee that 50% of the posters who have complained about Vista have either:
1. not used it at all
2. have disregarded the minimum requirements and installed it on hardware from the 90s
3. hate it because they want to hate it.

You know, when your only intention is to look for bugs, nothing is going to satisfy you. The same Joes who try Apple's products with an open mind, don't do the same with MS's products. They are looking for excuses to dislike it. Prejudice is a bigger factor in these things than you give it credit for. If Microsoft delivered the moon to you guys, you'd focus your attention only on the dark spots on it.

RG has "BEEN USING VISTA ULTIMATE FROM BETA 2 ONWARD". My question is, does Vista have the ability to disable caps-lock?
I have been using AIX in various forms since 1989 as a development environment and a desktop, Linux for the past 1.5 years as a 64-bit development environment and full desktop (that is, I no longer boot Windows more than once every 3 months to change a Win2K domain password, 'cause that's one thing that's a pain with FC5's Samba client).
Linux works as a primary desktop for me. Vista works as a primary desktop for others. Neither of our respective sample sizes is very large.
But I am hearing Vista besmirched by not just techies and anti-MS folks, but by mainstream technically aware but non-computer types such as pilots and business owners. This isn't a scientific survey either, but it's telling. I've never heard anything but 100% praise for previous Windows versions from these folks.

I'm totally agree with 'reflections'. They don't know what they say. Keep it up dude.

Joe:

I'm gonna take a few minutes to respond more or less point-by-point to this article, which I believe is mistakenly negative for one big reason and many small ones. The big reason: it is true that Vista doesn't generate the excitement that Windows95 did. But those days of market ignition are over, and they ain't coming back. Vista's job is *not* to be the next Win95, that would be impossible. Vista's job is to keep the custmers MS already has. And it's doing that. The next billion users aren't going to be in the saturated markets of the West; they're going to be in developing nations, where MS basically has no product that could gain traction at this point. OLPC and similar device/hardware combinations are the way forward there.

The reference to the Vista Capable lawsuit is a red herring. People will always be suing any company with pockets as deep as Microsoft has.

Yes, OEMs are starting to ship Linux (yay!). But this is because Linux has finally met the quality level which gives OEMs a realistic expectation of sustainable sales. That's not a stumble by the frontrunner; that's a new runner in the race after years of training. Surely no sane person would argue that MS should have somehow used its muscle to keep Linux from entering the OEM market?

I completely agree that in the eyes of many computer users, XP is 'good enough'. Security was XP's weak point (even after SP2), and Vista does indeed deliver 'significantly better' security. Even so, not many consumers rush out to buy a new car because it's significantly safer. So, what other feature did XP really lack, or need significant improvement in? I'm really anxious to hear answers to this, not from a thousand individuals with specific preferences, but from a market perspective.

You say complexity is an issue. But version complexity has already been addressed (by others in this thread): Vista brings one new version to market. The current lineup is not much different from the XP lineup, although the names have changed. Vista Home Premium is roughly the same price to the OEM computer buyer as XP Home Edition was. Hardware complexity? Not really - you may need a video card upgrade to run Aero. Or you can just run without Aero. There have been some lacking drivers, but this is rapidly being addressed, and as a problem, it belongs more to the hardware vendors than to Microsoft itself. We saw the same thing in the Windows 2000 and XP cycles. In any case, most people get their Vista preinstalled on a new PC - where all of the hardware complexity issues have been addressed.

The security popups (UAC) are definitely an issue. But this is a new behaviour, much needed from a security standpoint, which the average user will soon learn to handle. New features do require new learning on behalf of users; why does this surprise anyone? UAC popups become a rarity after the first week of installing applications and customizing settings; why do so many pundits conveniently leave out this hugely salient fact?

The argument I liked least in this article was the suggestion that updates = incomplete product. If this is true, then very few finished products have ever been shipped by anyone in the software arena. I'm glad the updates are coming out. I want to see more of them. I'd rather have my new software today, and a few updates each month, than wait forever for the 'perfect' version.

To sum up: Joe, you've fallen into the anti-MS pundit pattern of aggregating a bunch of molehills and presenting them as if collectively they form a mountain range. Yes each of those molehills truly exists - but let's get them in perspective!

I find it interesting that only comment writers are bringing the Macintosh or Apple into the discussion. Neither are mentioned even once in the main article. It's entirely about Microsoft and what its done all by itself.

Mac OS X 10.0 (the first released version) is mentioned once and only to call it "troubled," an understatement to be sure. Microsoft has provided little for its OEM customers or users with Vista and the shareholders seem happy with their flat-line stock performance. :-)

Note to all those who like to pile dirt on this new OS because of slow transfer time remaining calculations.

Yes, this particular little incongruity was annoying (kind of like XP search when I first upgraded years ago). Unlike XP search, this has been fixed. The patch is available from the Microsoft website.

Vista is extremely pleasant to look at and a dog in terms of performance. Windows Mail, the OE replacement is an even bigger joke - introduce an email client that doesn't even support your own Hotmail service, now that was a bright one! The newsgroups are filled with people having problems with this dog email client and the alternative is the Windows Live Mail beta client that is so slow that it makes Vista look fast. I really like the new timer icon when you are being told to wait in Vista, you know, the little circle that has a bar go around it - that is what this operating system is good for - going around in circles. I'm running with a 2 GZ Pentium M, 1.5 gigs of RAM and this puppy is dog slow. I've become so fed up that I have recently removed Vista on two of my PC's and replaced it with Ubuntu. The difference in performance between Vista and Ubuntu is unbelievable, my machine now works as advertised. Vista is a bigger mistake than ?ME, Microsoft got greedy and lost this customer. I had a MS software subscription that was due this week for roughly $700 per year, they got ZERO. Activation, WGA, DRM - GREED GREED GREED!!! Where are the Ultimate Extras - likely in Bill's bank account! I was a loyal MS supporter and fan for years and years and I am personally so sick of the arrogance and greed that this company now shows that I hope it goes under. I am mad as hell at MS and I'm not going take it any longer. Open Office may not be quite as polished as Office 2007 but it works and it is free in both cost and better yet free of Microsoft. The only way to fix this Vista mess is:
- Eliminate Activation, WGA, DRM
- Two versions Home and Ultimate
- Reduce your prices (Office $500, Open Office - Free). hmm wonder which I will pick
- Deliver what you promise - where's the extras (beef)?
- Speed it up or step aside, this OS is dog SLOW
- Listen to your customers for a change
- Tell your customers how you are going to make this blunder right
- Sell your MS shares because this company will not listen to the above, they have become to arrogant for that.

I have been using Vista for months now and am really happy. It has not crashed on me once and has worked very well. Small improvements like the in built search has really helped. I really cannot see myself going back to XP ever again. The Vista experience is much better.
What I do not get is who these people are who keep having issues with Vista?? Its like suddenly all the reports have some problem with Vista. thats true for bloggers too. I really think they are just spreading FUD and trying to gain more traffic.
Its a shame!!

You guys really need to get yourself a good installer CD. No cost to you.

http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major

Read the pros and cons. Consider the target hardware and choose a distribution to match your RAM and tat saves you time.

Google your individual device, IF upon hard drive install they don't all auto configure. Replace poor devices with a Googled device known to work natively and automatically (zero set-up time). I mean why mess with crappy device even when they have been now reverse engineered if you have to fiddle with it.

In case you don't know, the drivers come with the CD...!

Try Mepis on your best computer or AntiX on really old PII's with 64MB RAM. Keep in mind though, there's no substitute for faster hardware (but AntiX will seem to speed up and old box).

Tried Vista. Wasn't seriously impressed. Switched to Debian GNU/Linux. Haven't looked back.

I purchased a new laptop with Vista.
After just two days of shaking my head at Vista and terrible performance, I reformatted the hard drive killing Vista and installed Linux.
Now the laptop is a joy to use and very fast.
Simple enough don't you think!

I installed Vista on my wife's computer. It has 1 gig of ram....an Athlon64 4000+ dual core with an NVIDIA 6800gt video card. It runs like crap. All updated "vista supported" drivers. If I try to copy say a 1 gig file to a different place on the same harddrive it takes FOREVER!!! This isn't a glitch this is broken. Also a lot of people here don't play games apparently. The gaming under VIsta is the worst. Most games have litterally half the performance that they do in XP. The question is what is so great about this OS to put up with all of the bs glitches? What about the network issues that a LOT of people are having. It takes forever to get an IP from my router. Microsoft says this is a problem with my router's implemintation of the DHCP protocol??? INteresting that Win XP, OS X, or linux have this issue. And I run xp,vista,and linux on the SAME MACHINE!! Vista is the only one with the issue. I have had this issue on 2 computers so I chitcanned vista. I love to tinker but I haven't had such a bad experience since windows ME. I don't think the author is saying they are same just saying the experience of frustration for many is the same as ME.... What can't I do in XP that I can do in Vista that actually matters?

I find it interesting that as soon as a columnist says something bad about Vista, it it always blamed on poor journalism and personal bias.

Ever thought that Vista really could suck?

-Jason

[Reply to BigToe comment]
>> I can assure you, that if the hardware vendors correct BIOS firmware, and provide capable and certified drivers, the Vista experience is WOW.

Microsoft is going to have to do to "WOW" what it did to "Long Horn": scrap it because of the association it developed in people's minds with garbage you want to stay away from.

>> ... I installed for my mother over 6 months ago remains secure & virus free.

Is that because she doesn't use the computer or because it isn't connected to the Internet?

Actually, you were probably smart enough to put it behind a Linux firewall.

>> WOW because the firewall works & integrates seamlessly and I dont have to understand how to configure ports or services. Just answer a simple question & KAZAM - its all done.

Whatever. That's why you had to do the job for your mother. Vista is so simple, that it was too simple for her. Kind of how the DOS command line is too simple for my mother, too. Is that what you meant or were you only talking about configuring the firewall? I don't blame Microsoft for taking away users' control over the firewall. Microsoft needs quick and unrestricted access to momma's machine.

>> ... Windows update works like a charm

Voodoo.

>> Buy Vista + Office 2007 + AV, thats it - no need for anything else.

How little to get for so much money. Your standards have been beaten down by Microsoft.

Distrowatch.org shows you how much more you can get, not for over $500, but for $0.

>> My desktop has been humming from day 1

That was the hint. No thanks to you, your desktop will live out the rest of its short life in grievous pain.

>> WOW because it just works.

Vista: giving new meaning to the expression "WOW" and to the phrase "it just works."

>> blah blah

Microsoft marketing blaming everyone else's proprietary garbage to excuse Microsoft's own proprietary garbage.

I have advice. Use open source software (but only after you've sold your MSFT stock).

Vista is slow and sluggish even for modern equipment, does MS expect people to run out and get a supercomputer now just for the OS?

When you upgrade you just expect faster and better (or at least the same performance not worse)

Fact is if you want a good Vista experience you'll need to get a new pc and even then you'd better get top of the line to run Vista.

Also people are losing trust in MS and that's a big problem if they keep that up.

"Windows capable" some fell for this con. "YOU'LL NEED A NEW PC TO RUN WINDOWS VISTA", that's what they needed to advertise if they had been more honest type of folk.

And be ready for the endless updates to Vista, they'll get it right sooner or later only by then
"YOU'LL NEED A NEW PC TO RUN WINDOWS ________"
(fill in the blank)