Hands Up If You Hate Vista!

[Deleted User]

tomsolomon wrote: »

I have to agree with Marvin on this one.
MS has made it very difficult for third party vendors to produce hardware and software compatible with Vista.
Its either comply with DRM or we will make your life difficult.
Which is why Vista is suffering, and realy one of its only major drawbacks.

tomsolomon wrote: »

I have to agree with Marvin on this one.
MS has made it very difficult for third party vendors to produce hardware and software compatible with Vista.
Its either comply with DRM or we will make your life difficult.
Which is why Vista is suffering, and realy one of its only major drawbacks.

I disagree

Program and driver developers have had an easy ride with the ease of writing under performing, unstable and poorly developed software/drivers for previous incarnations of Windows. Just look at Creative, two years since the first releases of Vista were going out to manufacturers they still cannot produce drivers to make their cards function correctly on Vista. Microsoft chose to go hardball with Vista to protect the integrity of the stability of the operating system by restricting previously allowed functions to third parties. Doesn't that mean it's hard to develop for, it just that software has to be developed correctly now.

If it's been so hard to develop for, then there would be very few programs/hardware that works which isn't the case. What has been made clear is the difference between good companies and bad ones.

Vista is not suffering, Vistsa is not doomed, Vista is not the new ME.

Stop throwing outdated hardware where the manufacturer has cobbled together some patchy driver as an afterthough to barely make it function with Vista and you'll find it to be as stable, if not more, than any other version of Windows.

isofa

Despite being over a year old, this is a great article from a good journo, and sums up my feelings about Vista

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/72120,what-vista-might-have-been.aspx

[Deleted User]

be_alright wrote: »

I disagree

Program and driver developers have had an easy ride with the ease of writing under performing, unstable and poorly developed software/drivers for previous incarnations of Windows. Just look at Creative, two years since the first releases of Vista were going out to manufacturers they still cannot produce drivers to make their cards function correctly on Vista. Microsoft chose to go hardball with Vista to protect the integrity of the stability of the operating system by restricting previously allowed functions to third parties. Doesn't that mean it's hard to develop for, it just that software has to be developed correctly now.

Which would still mean that it's harder to develop for, if you didn't have to "do it right" previously.

Whether that's the case or not, the point remains that it makes little difference to the user if the hardware they have won't work in their OS. Sacrificing interoperability in favour of control-freakery is... well, so like Apple!

If it's been so hard to develop for, then there would be very few programs/hardware that works which isn't the case. What has been made clear is the difference between good companies and bad ones.

Or, if one were being more cynical, the ones that were in bed with Microsoft and the ones that weren't.

Vista is not suffering, Vistsa is not doomed, Vista is not the new ME.

Vista has not exactly been received enthusiastically. Whether it's the new ME... well, I think the jury's still out on that.

Stop throwing outdated hardware where the manufacturer has cobbled together some patchy driver as an afterthough to barely make it function with Vista and you'll find it to be as stable, if not more, than any other version of Windows.

And again we're back to the familiar arguments used once upon a time by Linux and FreeBSD zealots: "You idiot, what on Earth were you doing, trying to use a Canon 350i with Linux in the first place!" We're not used to hearing these arguments in defense of Windows - which tells you something about Vista right there.

Conor_3

Marvin_the_Martian wrote: »

Or, if one were being more cynical, the ones that were in bed with Microsoft and the ones that weren't.

Yes because all the creators of my open source software on my laptop, including my 4 year old no longer continued Usenet Client which works perfectly under Vista, are in bed with MS aren't they?

Riight.

[Deleted User]

Conor wrote: »

Yes because all the creators of my open source software on my laptop, including my 4 year old no longer continued Usenet Client which works perfectly under Vista, are in bed with MS aren't they?

Riight.

I was thinking more of hardware and drivers; it's possible that some vendors had rather more support from/communication with Microsoft than others. As far as userland software is concerned, many of the system calls/APIs won't have changed, so they ought still to work (save for some that may have relied on some arcane features of earlier versions of Windows that are no longer supported in Vista, or others that may get bitten by a more stringent security policy). It does vary, though - it took quite a while before a version of VLC was released that worked properly in Vista64.

Conor_3

Marvin_the_Martian wrote: »

And again we're back to the familiar arguments used once upon a time by Linux and FreeBSD zealots: "You idiot, what on Earth were you doing, trying to use a Canon 350i with Linux in the first place!" We're not used to hearing these arguments in defense of Windows - which tells you something about Vista right there.

Yes we are. The very same was said when 2000/XP came out which used a completely different driver model to Windows 9x. There was a lot of hardware which didn't work. There's also lot of hardware which was supported in the early days of WinXP that you can't find drivers for nowadays which makes a clean install impossible. Try finding XP drivers for an ATI Rage Mobility M3 card if you can.

[Deleted User]

Conor wrote: »

Yes we are. The very same was said when 2000/XP came out which used a completely different driver model to Windows 9x. There was a lot of hardware which didn't work.

I recall there being a lot of software that didn't work - mostly superannuated DOS games - but I don't recall there being a big issue with hardware. Wasn't the driver model similar to Windows NT 4?

There's also lot of hardware which was supported in the early days of WinXP that you can't find drivers for nowadays which makes a clean install impossible. Try finding XP drivers for an ATI Rage Mobility M3 card if you can.

ICBW but aren't the Rage 128 drivers good for that card?

BillScarab

When i went form 95 to XP my scanner wouldn't work and no drivers were ever released so I had to replace it. I went from XP to Vista and all my hardware worked, so for me personally the Vista release has been better than the release of XP.

[Deleted User]

I, foolishly, made a jump to XP64 and it was perhaps one of the single worst decisions I have made. Atrocious drivers, program support, performance, stability you name it, it was dogged by it.

Vista x64 on the other hand is a complete breeze.

[Deleted User]

be_alright wrote: »

I, foolishly, made a jump to XP64 and it was perhaps one of the single worst decisions I have made. Atrocious drivers, program support, performance, stability you name it, it was dogged by it.

Vista x64 on the other hand is a complete breeze.

I guess it is, if you've already had the trial-by-fire of XP64! I on the other hand, didn't have that benefit of experience... All that said, my Vista64 box seems to be working ok now.