Are you fed up with Vista's problems yet?
This our first post so we thought it would be nice to introduce ourselves.
We are PC power users and distributors of numerous products and services online.
A few months back we had the misfortune of having our main computer crash which featured the XP operating system. ...Yes the blue screen of death.
We didn't fret as we had everything backed up if this should ever occur. What we did not plan for is having a totally different operating system to contend with in the process of restore and recovery.
WHAT A NIGHTMARE.
For weeks just before a major launch we did nothing but pc trouble shoot-- which is not even our business. Techs where not sufficently up to smart when it came to Vista and we soon learned we had to tackle the problem ourselves. So we did, and 6 months later we are much wiser about Vista but Vista is still a major issue when it comes to functionality.
It sure looks good, but it doesn't work. And in business the computer is one of our major tools of productivity.
Our computer with Vista came with 512 mg memory and Vista was so sloow that it was almost laughable. How much memory have you found that you need in order for Vista to not only run but to run optimally?
What other hardware problems are you finding with Vista?
Because of these problems, we are seriously considering a permanent divorce from Microsoft.
So, we have joined this forum to keep a pulse on what is happening, garner support and share what we have learned in the six months of constant use of vista.
[edited by: bill at 1:58 am (utc) on Oct. 1, 2007]
[edit reason] see sticky mail [/edit]
You got a blue screen error on an XP machine and then tried a restore with Vista? That sounds like more trouble than it's worth. I would have stuck with XP for the restore.
If you're looking to upgrade to Vista I would suggest a clean install of your OS and software. Upgrading from XP does not seem to be a smooth process. Historically MS has offered upgrades to their new OS from previous versions, but I've always recommended a clean install.
I can barely run XP these days on that little memory. Unless you were using the Home Basic version of Vista then you don't have enough memory according to MS [microsoft.com]. The minimum recommendation is 1 GB RAM, I'd go for as much as you can afford.
My first and only experience with Vista is spending two days trying to get basic stuff working with a brand new Dell machine that had Vista preloaded. Nothing complex and no software which hasn't worked fine without alternation with every Microsoft OS since Windows NT 4.0. Suffice to say that by the end of the second day the harddrive was wiped and XP installed.
The usual tip about any new operating system is: Don't get it before Service Pack 2 is out... It seems to be a tradition the company have, like Christmas - the gifts from last year aren't compatible with anything this year. :)
I use Vista for testing software but, otherwise, I use XP.
My experience is that Vista has lots of little problems, some design issues, some user-interface issues and, all sorts of things have changed for no apparent reason other than some half-wit thinks change == progress.
The user interface is pretty but functionality is worse, for instance, on the most recent open-file dialog (try Firefox) there is no parent-folder button/icon (but Alt-UpArrow will do the job).
Unless SP1 sorts out a lot of the user-interface issues, I think many people will continue to hate Vista even if MS fix almost everything else (which I doubt they will).
XP SP2 is stable and will run all software (other than MS Vista Games) for the foreseeable future. The only security benefit of Vista is User Account Control, which, whilst sensible in concept, has not been implemented well.
Furthermore, if MS permitted Data Execution Prevention (DEP) to be enabled by manifest (an XML file embedded in modern windows apps) then all internet-aware apps could be made substantially more secure without having to change a global Windows setting that can break other (older) apps. Indeed, if DEP could be switched on for individual apps, it would be possible to issue a warning when an internet connection request is made by an app that is not DEP-aware. Since DEP is not required except in the context of internet security, you would think this approach would be blindingly obvious. However, MS only provide the ability to switch off DEP for individual apps - totally barking mad (and proof if any were needed that MS just don't have a clue what they're doing when it comes to security).
Not terribly upset with my Vista test machine. It is a resource hog though. With nothing but Outlook 2007 open, a full 56% of my memory is in use... and I have 2 gig of RAM. For the basic user it seems to get everything done that it should, but I often find the interfaces clunky because I'm so used to the way it's been for so long. I also hate it asking me three times if I'm sure I want to do something. Always reminds me of that funny Mac commercial with the secret service guy bothering the pc... "You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or allow? <sigh> Allow."
But I digress... Lots of our specialized software isn't supported in Vista so my Vista laptop will remain a toy, not a work machine.
A Microsoft Haiku
A vista opens then dies
meeting blue screen with unworthy ram
thoughts of imac apples
works fine on 2 gigs.
I run 2 monitors , 20 + pages open. Have Microsoft Expression running and a TV tuner on one monitor at times .
I'm actually impressed with it.
Dual Core ADM 4400 + 2 Gigs mem . Had it 3 months now.
The only "issue" is as was mentioned with the security set so high you get security pop ups all the time...
Yes, it does seem that security settings are the main problem. The case which broke the camel's back for me was a .dll which was linked to a word macro - worked fine with the same office version under XP. It was impossible to get it to work, no matter what things were disabled, removed or added.
Syllable short on the last line? (Or rather a couple too many on all lines and one too many on the last?)
new vista awakes
expectations and new hope
falls at first hurdle
My Vista is not too old. Like the colour and the looks. The problem I see some of us have is the lack of compatibility with other systems. So now I had to install MSoffice as well. The combo is great and works so far.
Working in an IT-department for a large corporation we have no plans for implementing Vista, there are several reasons and none of them has to do with that Vista is an inferior product.
We had computers until very recently that used Windows 2000, so the story was the same when XP was launched. I mean it's constantly the same arguments when a new Windows is launched: compatibility, user interface (always all bells and whistles with no functionality, people said the same about Windows 95 and XP for that matter) and security (considering that billions of people use Windows every day I think that Microsoft are doing a better job than they have done before).
As for divorcing Microsoft, well..... It might work if you are a small business and your clients are not relying on Microsoft as well. But for a larger corporation going open source might be just as expensive. However Wall-Mart and other Fortune 500 companies have done so, the question is of course how much they saved. Consultants are expensive these days.
Businesses will not be Vistafied until about four years anyway. In five years we will probably complain about how terrible next Windows is and underline the virtues of Vista SP2.
Hey Bill, if you read our post closer, the XP died so we got a new Vista equipped laptop. That is when our real trouble started. I don't know why any manufacturer would put Vista on a machine that only had 512 mg ram. That was enough memory to run Vista and nothing else. Talk about selling a defective product.
I have read more posts from disgruntled users of Vista than from those that are satisfied with Vista. Is XP winning over Vista? Just how does the average John Q Public get his right to chose acknowledged?
Speak out- share your views.
[edited by: bill at 12:20 am (utc) on Oct. 6, 2007]
[edit reason] no URLs thanks [/edit]
I've been running a 64 bit version since one of the beta releases and it runs fine. I have a dual core with 2 gig and the hardware does fine with it as well.
Is there a real reason for anyone to upgrade? Nope. I just wanted to run MySQL on a 64 bit Windows machine to see how it would do.
I'm happy with my Vista...as I was with XP and others before it. Most problems I've seen seem to be related to hardware manufacturers not having good enough drivers or as the OP said about the hardware just wasn't good enough due to lack of RAM.
Welcome to WW.
I hate to be nasty to a new member but as a "power user" did you really go out and buy a Vista laptop with 512 MB?
I've only had one trip up with a new Vista install on a Toshiba laptop I picked up a couple of months ago, and that was a legacy problem with Outlook Business Contact Manager. Otherwise no problems.
What does surprise me is the time it's taking for vendors to release compatible drivers and software. Still waiting to pick up a Toshiba docking station for the laptop until they release fully compatible driversn. And a Vista-compatible version of the backup software I use on my other machines is still "in the pipeline." A bit frustrating.
I'm not switching to Vista till they fix all the bugs. I've tried it for a little while and then I deciced to go back to my previous OS XP SP2
To Linux users, Mac users, IBM employees and/or sellers of IBM services:
"Linux users are supposed to have brains. If you don't think I'm making sense, fine. One of us might consider the other an idiot, but that's life."*
If your computer system DOESN'T have the required resources (CPU, RAM) to run Microsoft Windows Vista, DON'T install Vista.
"Don't go to non-Linux groups to pick a fight. Each advocacy group exists for discussion about one particular system. Don't try to invade other advocacy groups. That's rude. No-one likes big-mouthed strangers."*
Let the market decide if Microsoft Windows Vista is a success or not. You'll know soon.
"Don't spread lies or rumors. Check your facts. If you don't know how to do that, then perhaps you shouldn't take part in the discussion, except perhaps by making questions."*
* From [liw.iki.fi...]
OK, I assume someone is going to talk about "Dutch Consumer Association declares war on Vista" as reported at [channelregister.co.uk...] .
I bet you most complains mentioned in the article were made by ex-members of OS/2 user groups and ex-Team OS/2 zealots. Quite a few IBM employees might be part of this so called "boycott" as well.
IBM is known to use these type of tactics when survival is at stake.
Paul B. Carroll, staff reporter of the Wall Street Journal in the 1990s, wrote an article titled "IBM Is Offering Workers Prizes to Hawk OS/2".
On March 27 1992 Carroll wrote: "So IBM is about to launch a program that will attempt to turn all its 344,000 employees into salesmen for the personal-computer software, which is in a fight for its life against Microsoft Corp.'s Windows juggernaut."
Carroll added: "IBM will offer employees incentives ranging from medals to IBM software or hardware to cash, depending on how much effort they put into OS/2. In return, says Lucy Baney, an IBM marketing executive, the company will ask employees to approach their neighbors, their dentists, their schoolboards."
I wonder what IBM is offering its employees to bring down Microsoft Windows Vista today?
Why are Linux network administrators whining so much about Microsoft Windows Vista?
Is it because your Samba networks can't serve properly Windows Vista clients?
Well, that's what happens when you don't work within the appropriate legal rules.
So instead of putting the blame on Microsoft Windows Vista, perhaps you should go to Novell for help.
It seems to me that the maker of any product would want to design that product in order to produce as large a marketbase as possible. Microsoft with its Vista seems to have tunnel vision in this respect. They designed it such that all hardware would need new drivers. Why couldn't they have made it compatible with all of the XP drivers? Then there would be no compatibility issues.
A lot of posts criticize the printer, pda, camera, etc. manufacturers for not coming out with new drivers for Vista. Tell me, if you were a printer manufacturer would you go to the expense of producing a driver for a printer that, for all practical purposes, is obsolete. Most companies are not willing to invest in something unless it has the capability of making money for them. How would making Vista compatible drivers make any money for the company?
Now imagine that you are a small business owner with 10 laser printers that are 4 years old but still working just fine. Are you going to buy all new printers just so that you can upgrade to Vista?
Microsoft's policies did nothing but extremely limit their potential customers. Not a good idea for any company! What do you think?
[edited by: bill at 6:14 pm (utc) on Oct. 16, 2007]
[edit reason] no sigs. Thanks [/edit]
Well, I've never had a serious problem with Vista, and I even use Business x64. :-p
Of course, the machine I use is sufficient for the task with 4gigs of ram, but it runs everything smoothly, even extracting large rar archives, playing music videos in wmp, and writing this post at the same time with no visibly slowdown.
I get your point about new drivers being required, but for the average user, driver handling is a blessing. Everything installs automatically! I didn't have to insert a single cd to get up and running (of course, I downloaded my own drivers later, but that's because I'm picky ;-)).
If you're a power user, the second problem (no. 1 being hardware) is easily solved. Disable UAC. If you're a power user, you know what to open and what not to open, and don't need it. Get rid of it!
The only problem I've ever encountered is that MS doesn't provide MDAC in an x64 version, meaning I have to run my server in wow64 mode. No big deal, but took a while figuring out. :-) Not that this is a x64 shortcoming, nothing to do with Vista.
All in all, I'm very happy about it, and would recommend it to anyone (with sufficient ram).
Just my experience, anyway.
I agree - with the proper hardware, Vista will enable you to do the work at hand. The trouble is that computers with only 512 mg ram are being sold with Vista to the unsuspecting public. The typical computer user doesn't want to have to add more memory in order to work efficiently nor do they want to learn how to tweak the computer or disable a bunch of features in order to work. It is very frustrating to be told that you don't have permission to rename a folder, especially if you're not used to using the control panel and there is little or no help available. Vista really should come with a manual!
There are two conceptual problems with Vista
1) Too much revolution as opposed to evolution
2) Too much change for the sake of change (such as the ghastly titlebar/menubar design of Explorer/IE - yuck!)
And then there are things that just haven't been thought through properly. For instance, User Account Control is fine in principle, but...
1) MS changed the action of the "RunAs" verb to mean "RunAsAdmin".
2) There is no "RunAsUser" verb (or other simple method) for a process running with admin rights to launch a process with standard rights.
3) Programs running with standard rights are not even allowed to save data to, or modify their own program files directory. Instead old programs have to rely on file virtualization whilst new programs may require major changes (I know about this one).
4) It is only really essential that programs that connect to the internet run with standard rights, so UAC could be cranked down enormously with little impact on security and without breaking old software, and without annoying the user with endless interruptions (or so it seems sometimes).
User Account Control could have been added to XP (as an option).
Aero glass effects could also have been added (as an option) - core functionality to implement aero-like effects first appeared in Windows 2000!
Vista was originally intended to have a brand new filing system, but MS couldn't make it work (and for the average user it would have been no better).
Given that 64bit XP already existed, there is nothing useful in Vista that could not have been included as XP SP3. The reality of Vista is that MS created it to make money from users that feel the need to upgrade to the latest thing.
Finally, to all those that say, "Vista works fine for me" - BIG DEAL, that hardly represents an advantage over XP, in fact, it is the absolute minimum that users have the right to expect.
|Finally, to all those that say, "Vista works fine for me" - BIG DEAL, that hardly represents an advantage over XP, in fact, it is the absolute minimum that users have the right to expect. |
So...those of us who have not had problems should not answer that we're not fed up as the OP asked?
And I cannot decipher whether or not you are fed up with Vista problems or not based on your post :-)
As a programmer, I am thoroughly fed up with Vista. As a user, I can live with it, but I dual boot and use XP most of the time (must get around to trying Virtual PC one day).
I use Firefox for general browsing (but Opera has a better download interface) so the worst of the visual changes only bother me when I have to use Explorer. The changes as to where things can be found don't annoy me as much as they might others since I have software (that I wrote) that creates a more standard interface across all Windows platforms. Neverthless, I am still totally bamboozled sometimes when I try to do something in Vista that I know how to do in XP - that is just plain crazy. It's one thing to create additional links to navigate operating system features, it's quite another to remove links. It is certainly true that MS has never been good at logical organization of features and, in my opinion, Vista is a step backwards in this regard rather than a step forwards.
Finally, whilst the additional features of the Vista messagebox interface might be useful to programmers eventually, the new file-overwrite/delete warning dialogs are totally awful - the old file dialogs are much better.
When people say "Vista works fine for me" they are, in effect saying, "you must be doing something wrong" to those that are having problems. Well, they may be doing something wrong, but equally, the problem may lie in the OS implementation or, maybe, in the design, both of which are faulty.
"Vista was originally intended to have a brand new filing system"
I read in an article on the microsoft site about this new improved filing system but the only improvement mentioned was that it's name was changed from "my documents" to "documents". Were any other improvements added? Or were they tried and just didn't work?
|I read in an article on the microsoft site about this new improved filing system but the only improvement mentioned was that it's name was changed from "my documents" to "documents". Were any other improvements added? Or were they tried and just didn't work? |
It depends on what is meant by "filing system".
There are some changes to the start menu for example you can search it, the windows explorer adress thingy bar is now clickable. That means you don't have to go back to My Computer every time you want to change drive, or type it in manually (which was especially hard in XP to keep track of if you had about ten different drives attached).
Another feature is the live thumbnail thing, which I have not used. There might be more differences.
By "New File System" I mean that NTFS was to be thrown in a garbage can and replaced - but they could not get the replacement to work satisfactorily.
|By "New File System" I mean that NTFS was to be thrown in a garbage can and replaced - but they could not get the replacement to work satisfactorily. |
Yes WinFS was put on hold. Vista runs NTFS v 3.1, which is the same as XP but not the same version as 2000. However Vista uses Transactional NTFS, which XP does not.
Having used Vista for more than 6 months now, I have to say I still hate it. I get less done, am less productive, and some stuff just will not work. The user interface is less useful than older versions of Windows.
I'll never forgive it for wrecking Mozilla Seamonkey into an unusable state. Even after deleting every file and folder associated with it, a reinstall is still totally broken and unusable.