Hands Up If You Hate Vista!

arealbasketcase

ronben wrote: »

On a personal note, I feel that Vista is a stop gap, a bit like ME.

I'd agree with that, I think they rushed into releasing it 'cos they where having so many problems keeping XP safe from virus'.

It may be true that developers had a couple of years to develop drivers but it could also be true that they feel like many others that they are better off developing for the next generation: Windows 7, which as they say, is a different beast.

Someone said that it is the most stable OS from Microsoft, disagree, bring back Windows for Workgroups (yeah OK, just my little joke).:rotfl:

robt_2

zappster1966 wrote: »

Okies. I'm not bashing Vista as such, merely pointing out that between February & July last year I had terrible problems with my camera, printer & graphics card due to dodgy drivers. I've freely admitted my problems were largely caused by drivers and that perhaps now, over a year on, things may be considerably better for Vista users.

I wouldn't know ... I've abandoned Vista. As have many others I know. A quick trip around cyberspace reveals we're not in isolation either. By any measurement of customer satisfaction Vista has been nothing short of disastrous.

People only complain when something is wrong. How many satisfied users do you think there are for every dissatisfied user - 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000?

To those of you having a good experience with Vista, good luck to you. And enjoy it while it lasts. By all accounts Windows 7 will be on sale in mid to late 2009 so get those pennies saved up for all your fancy hardware.

Windows 7 will not be released before late 2010 despite what anyone says.

[Deleted User]

arealbasketcase wrote: »

It may be true that developers had a couple of years to develop drivers but it could also be true that they feel like many others that they are better off developing for the next generation: Windows 7, which as they say, is a different beast.

Why would a hardware vendor alienate it's customer base by not developing for Vista, driving customers away to other brands? It doesn't make sense.

Hardly anything is known about Windows 7, so why would anyone put their eggs in that basket yet?

arealbasketcase

I don't think Windows 7 is quite that much of a secret, we are hearing that US authorities have already seen a build of it (something to do with antitrust, which Microsoft are somewhat aware of!).

There is a bit of deja vu about this, Microsoft does seem to have a habit of releasing a version of windows that goes down like a lead baloon only to quickly supercede it with something better. Maybe the hardware developers feel that both they and the buying public do not have bottomless pockets, why invest in a shortlived O.S.?

Just my thoughts, I don't know about everyone else but I have skipped a few versions of Windows over the years and I can't say as I have missed out on too much.

[Deleted User]

arealbasketcase wrote: »

I don't think Windows 7 is quite that much of a secret, we are hearing that US authorities have already seen a build of it (something to do with antitrust, which Microsoft are somewhat aware of!).

Do you mean Milestone 1, which has been released to Key Microsoft Partners already?

There is a bit of deja vu about this, Microsoft does seem to have a habit of releasing a version of windows that goes down like a lead baloon only to quickly supercede it with something better. Maybe the hardware developers feel that both they and the buying public do not have bottomless pockets, why invest in a shortlived O.S.?

I don't get where this idea that people think Vista is on bided time is from? By the time Windows 7 makes it into general release it will be at least two years, by that time Vista will be approaching six years old. Is that not long enough for an operating system to have served for?

Vista is a better operating system than XP could aspire to be by addressing the security issues that plauged the previous Windows design.

Vista can't be bad and Windows Server 2008 be well received, they're both derived from the same thing. It's just another case of MS bandwagon bashing I'm afraid.

Rev

I used Vista for a while but went back to XP, not because of stability problems or issues, I just simply prefer XP. And since XP does all I need, I decided to stick with that.

That said, almost all topics on here about vista are people complaining it has compatibility issues with their printer/scanner/camera. Or that they can't get drivers for things. Logic should tell them that has nothing to do with Vista and everything to do with the hardware companies not developing drivers. How is it Microsofts fault that "insert manufacturer of printer/scanner/camera" didn't make drivers for vista?

Personally, if I were shelling out £800 on something I'd check it was compatible with all my peripherals first.

arealbasketcase

be_alright wrote: »

Vista is a better operating system than XP in your opinion could aspire to be by addressing the security issues that plauged the previous Windows design.

It's just another case of MS bandwagon bashing I'm afraid. 'Fraid not

I am not bashing MS, I don't have any problem with them at all, but just because I happen to have a differing opinion doesn't make my opinion any less valid.

[Deleted User]

arealbasketcase wrote: »

I am not bashing MS, I don't have any problem with them at all, but just because I happen to have a differing opinion doesn't make my opinion any less valid.

In terms of security it's undeniable..

mech_2

Architecturally, Vista is the same as XP. It just has added eye-candy and other changes that affect the user experience (and eat lots of memory). As such, any drivers that follow the rules under XP should still work unless there are bugs in Vista. If Microsoft changed fundamental things that would affect third party hardware drivers then it's their fault as there wasn't any need for it. Additionally, if they allowed a manufacturer to advertise something as "Vista ready" and carry Microsoft's logo, they should have properly approved the product, which means actually testing it with Vista before allowing an endorsement.

If all that didn't happen then of course it's Microsoft's fault. Needlessly breaking compatibility with old products when bringing out a new product is the fault of the one who made the changes. That much seems obvious to me. And Microsoft has a long history of it; just look at MS Office file compatibility (or rather the lack of it) between practically every version over the years. It's designed to force the user to upgrade when otherwise there would be no need. I don't really understand why anyone would defend this policy.

[Deleted User]

mech wrote: »

Architecturally, Vista is the same as XP.

Incorrect. Vista was originally based on the XP codebase but this was shelved and development was resumed from the codebase of Windows Server 2003.

It just has added eye-candy and other changes that affect the user experience (and eat lots of memory).

No it doesn't. Microsoft redesigned the way that drivers and programs operate to ensure that they do not operate with more systemwide user access privilages than is necessary, something that XP did not have.

As such, any drivers that follow the rules under XP should still work unless there are bugs in Vista. If Microsoft changed fundamental things that would affect third party hardware drivers then it's their fault as there wasn't any need for it.

Yes there was. Microsoft came under immense fire for being vunerable to operating system exploits, that is why they had to redesign the way the operating system worked. Drivers in Vista work very differently to how they did in XP, as to applications. Basically in XP every program that could be executed ran at the same level the user that requested the execution was able to access, ie administrator. Is it necessary for every user to execute every application with full system wide access? No.

Vista introduced UAC which will not let an application do anything that requires more privilages than the user that is logged in, and if it does prompts the user to continue or not, after elevating this into Secure Desktop which is a secondary desktop that can only have UAC running, so no fear of batch files emulating this.

Software companies are now forced to write Windows applications with this in mind, which in turn significantly reduces the amount of exploits that can affect a system, which surely can only be a good thing?

Additionally, if they allowed a manufacturer to advertise something as "Vista ready" and carry Microsoft's logo, they should have properly approved the product, which means actually testing it with Vista before allowing an endorsement.

To a point I agree on this.

If all that didn't happen then of course it's Microsoft's fault. Needlessly breaking compatibility with old products when bringing out a new product is the fault of the one who made the changes. That much seems obvious to me. And Microsoft has a long history of it; just look at MS Office file compatibility (or rather the lack of it) between practically every version over the years. It's designed to force the user to upgrade when otherwise there would be no need. I don't really understand why anyone would defend this policy.

I don't know what you mean. I can save most Office documents in 95 format. 13 years back compatibility is good enough for me.