Is Vista as bad as they make out?

[RobC]

Ok, I'm going to throw the cat among the pigeons here, but I'd like people to put some complete reasons forward as to why they feel Vista is rubbish.

 

I hear things every day on various forums/groups/blogs I frequent on how Vista is terrible and that it's worse than ME, etc., but I've been using it since it was released to Microsoft Partners in November 2006 and to be honest I'm finding it pretty good.

 

I think one of the major things people are forgetting is that XP was absolutely slated in the same way when it came out, and it was only when SP2 came out that it really became truely appreciated. I think Ed Bott over at ZDNet says it better than I can: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382

 

So my question to my fellow edugeekers is this:

 

What makes Vista so absolutely terrible compared to XP's early days? What particular feature(s)/bug(s)/etc, do you think warrant it being labelled Windows ME II and similar?

 

This isn't a rant at you guys in particular, just throwing it out to you guys/gals as I know I'll get some reasoned responses on here.

 

Over to you...

[Michael]

The hardware requirements are incredibly high comparatively to Windows 2000/XP/2003, especially when it comes to memory requirements. Run Vista on anything with less than 2GB of memory and its not very responsive at all.

 

Many applications and drivers (even after 1 year of Vista) are still incompatible or problematic. Evident of this, Microsoft have blocked Vista SP1 for particular users if certain devices with certain device drivers are installed. Things like this just shouldn't happen.

 

I also greatly believe that users across the globe are more selective about what they want to use and what they want to achieve. Microsoft's worst enemy are themselves, especially with Windows XP. XP is fast, reliable, compatible with a huge range of applications/drivers and it greatly rivals Vista. Other than visual elements of Vista, Microsoft have concentrated on security (which is important), however for most people it's of no interest.

 

Users demand new features/functions and Vista comparatively delivers very little from XP. Vista is definitely something for the future, but for now, it's XP all the way - especially with SP3 around the corner

[torledo]

Ok, I'm going to throw the cat among the pigeons here, but I'd like people to put some complete reasons forward as to why they feel Vista is rubbish.

 

I hear things every day on various forums/groups/blogs I frequent on how Vista is terrible and that it's worse than ME, etc., but I've been using it since it was released to Microsoft Partners in November 2006 and to be honest I'm finding it pretty good.

 

I think one of the major things people are forgetting is that XP was absolutely slated in the same way when it came out, and it was only when SP2 came out that it really became truely appreciated. I think Ed Bott over at ZDNet says it better than I can: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382

 

So my question to my fellow edugeekers is this:

 

What makes Vista so absolutely terrible compared to XP's early days? What particular feature(s)/bug(s)/etc, do you think warrant it being labelled Windows ME II and similar?

 

This isn't a rant at you guys in particular, just throwing it out to you guys/gals as I know I'll get some reasoned responses on here.

 

Over to you...

 

I don't subscribe to the idea that Windows XP only came good following release of SP2, there are a still a lot of big business on XP SP1 - typically the very large, very cautious orgs....

 

For us the main reason for deploying SP2 was the same reason for previous Microsoft service packs - getting a role up of the various hotfixes and patches in one package. Rather than the pointless stuff that people seem to rather bizarrely rave about such Windows Firewall.

 

Can't really comment a great deal on whether Vista sucks as i've only dabbled with it briefly. But my first impressions and objection is the overwhelming feeling that it really is an 'eye candy' exercise.

[CyberNerd]

Why Vista is rubbish

 

What makes Vista so absolutely terrible compared to XP's early days?[?QUOTE]

 

in XP's early days it was essentially 2k with some wizards and some wireless. I agree that the SP2 really bloated it out, like successive patching was supposed to make the machine slower! but vista is in a different league.

In the end I got fed up with XP and it's constant need for maintenance. Given enough time (and enough monkeys) MS will re-invent Unix anyway. So my linux migration gave me a head start.

I am holding high hopes for windows7 though, I suspect MS will put this forward if business doesn't adopt vista soon enough.

Edited March 19, 2008 by CyberNerd

[RobC]

Excellent, I got some interesting responses as hoped. I should make you aware that I'm not necessarily trying to make excuses for Vista. I'm just interested in the opinions, etc. Either way, I'm going to query a couple of the points made...

 

The hardware requirements are incredibly high comparatively to Windows 2000/XP/2003, especially when it comes to memory requirements. Run Vista on anything with less than 2GB of memory and its not very responsive at all.

 

Again, this was true of XP and if you have ever tried running XP on its minimum memory requirements (64Mb) it is virtually un-usable. The same is true of Vista - its minimum requirements may be higher (512Mb) and its actual usable amount (1Gb-2Gb depending) higher still, but this is the inevitable march of technology and there has been seven whole years since the launch of XP which in IT terms is an ice age.

 

Many applications and drivers (even after 1 year of Vista) are still incompatible or problematic. Evident of this, Microsoft have blocked Vista SP1 for particular users if certain devices with certain device drivers are installed. Things like this just shouldn't happen.

 

Yes, things like this shouldn't happen, but surely this isn't Microsoft's fault. Surely we should be ranting & moaning at the application and hardware developers to pull their fingers out and get this sorted. After all, they have had access to Vista for almost a year & a half since its launch, and roughly two to three years prior to that, and yet they still can't get thier applications and drivers to work properly. I don't think we're really pointing the blame in the right direction on this one.

 

I also greatly believe that users across the globe are more selective about what they want to use and what they want to achieve. Microsoft's worst enemy are themselves, especially with Windows XP. XP is fast, reliable, compatible with a huge range of applications/drivers and it greatly rivals Vista. Other than visual elements of Vista, Microsoft have concentrated on security (which is important), however for most people it's of no interest.

 

Microsoft have concentrated on security, and yet for most people it is of no interest? I would put this one more down to MS not marketing Vista properly then, rather than it being a particular problem with Vista itself. Ok, so Vista doesn't have a huge array of fancy features immediately obvious to tempt the buyer, but surely the major security changes shoudl be a big winner. And now that Server 2008 is out, there are more features available to the coporate users too. It's not that Vista is bad, more that MS's marketing is bad.

 

I don't subscribe to the idea that Windows XP only came good following release of SP2, there are a still a lot of big business on XP SP1 - typically the very large, very cautious orgs....

 

There are still a few large, caution orgs using NT4 - that doesn't mean it's good!

 

Come on then... any more thoughts?

[jcollings]

The same is true of Vista - its minimum requirements may be higher (512Mb) and its actual usable amount (1Gb-2Gb depending) higher still, but this is the inevitable march of technology and there has been seven whole years since the launch of XP which in IT terms is an ice age.

 

 

No - it's 2Gb that's usable - 1Gb just doesn't do it. We've just bought some new Pc's for our office and we have vista on them and it's usable-ish.

 

I think on the whole my feelings with Vista are it's ok but what is it bringing to the party?

[RobC]

Funny, I'm using Vista on a fairly old (~3-4 years) machine with 1Gb of RAM and it's running great for me. Starts up and logs on very quickly and is responsive throughout the day.

[FragglePete]

I ran Vista Ultimate at home for a while and really like it. It felt nice, looked nice, but over time I just got frustrated with it. Sometimes just browsing a directory tooks ages to respond.

 

The whole 'calculating time to copy' fiasco (fixed in SP1 I believe?) really pushed me over the edge, but it really did feel bloated. As someone said, don't bother if you've got less than 2Gb of RAM. All the IT Rooms in the School I work at are stuck on 512Mb for the foreseeable future, so Vista is at least a while away yet.

 

And why the hell should I have to run a Virtual PC running Windows XP to get some software that I used to work again?

 

When I went back to XP at home, my machine just felt so much more responsive. But dare I say it.... it looks a little dated compared to Vista?

 

Give me the look of Vista without all the bloat.

 

Pete

[cookie_monster]

I'm not over impressed but i'm starting to like it since i've stuck with it on my work desktop and it only has 1Gb of RAM. My main gripe is the need for 'at least' a 128 meg GPU just to run the jazzy new GUI features it's just too heavy.

 

-----------------------------------

@torledo

 

Rather than the pointless stuff that people seem to rather bizarrely rave about such Windows Firewall

 

I would just like to add that although there are better firewalls if MS has turned it on by default then most of the 'worm' incidences of 2002/03 could of been avoided and should of been concidered essential. It should still be used now IMHO unless you sub it for something else or you have NAP you are open to potential problems.

Edited March 19, 2008 by cookie_monster

[Michael]

Again, this was true of XP and if you have ever tried running XP on its minimum memory requirements (64Mb) it is virtually un-usable. The same is true of Vista - its minimum requirements may be higher (512Mb) and its actual usable amount (1Gb-2Gb depending) higher still, but this is the inevitable march of technology and there has been seven whole years since the launch of XP which in IT terms is an ice age.

 

Windows 2000 had a minimum required of 64MB, but XP was always 128MB (for full functionality). The memory requirement doubled. With Windows Vista, this has quadrupled since Windows XP and the rest! Vista needs a fast CPU and decent graphics to fully appreciate it. You can run Windows XP on a Pentium II 300MHz easily.

 

Yes, things like this shouldn't happen, but surely this isn't Microsoft's fault.

 

My understanding was that Windows Vista only allows signed drivers by default, whereas XP warns the user by default and allows you to Continue Anyway. It is Microsoft's fault, because clearly they're still not working close enough with manufactures to write drivers considered signable. And the end result is it causes further disruption to some users now applying Vista SP1. If Windows Update detects you have certain devices with certain device drivers installed, you have to address this before applying the Service Pack. I never had this problem with 2000 or XP.

 

Microsoft have concentrated on security, and yet for most people it is of no interest? I would put this one more down to MS not marketing Vista properly then, rather than it being a particular problem with Vista itself.

 

The Microsoft marketing isn't the issue in my opinion. They focused on the visuals because Apple did and they focused on security, because it was important and appealing to business customers. Microsoft however didn't concentrate on application compatibility and they didn't concentrate on optimising Vista. These are the two prime reasons why Vista adoption is slow and why so many return to the more trusted XP. Microsoft always boast about how many licenses they've sold, but rarely is it discussed how many people, companies, enterprises actually use Vista in practice. It isn't that many, even after a year.

The NT 6.0 kernel could of been optimised at client level and evidence of this is Windows Server 2008. Microsoft made the same mistake with XP/2003 admittedly, however the problem has widened with Vista/2008.

 

As for jcollings's contribution I think we need some clarification. Although Windows Vista can and does work with 1GB, we obviously do not just use applications built within the OS. In an Office environment, in education, you could be using Microsoft Office, Sims, FMS, web based applications and more! Vista's initial footprint is larger, so in practice 2GB or more is more appropriate.

[cookie_monster]

We still run a room of 2K pro boxes and they're usless with 128Mb memory in, we use NOD32 which is pretty light and they use approx 110Mb just after boot they need 196Mb minimum to be usable. XP is ok with 256 but really 512 is necessary so i'm not surprised that Vista needs at least 1Gb to be usable.

 

It's all a big old con.

 

MS have focused to hard on backwards compatibility for too long that's the problem, letting software houses get away with insisting on admin rights. Now they are starting to force the issue the house of cards is falling down.

 

I'm also running Vista with 1Gb memory and using SIMS and office it's not rocket powered but it's certainly usable.

Edited March 19, 2008 by cookie_monster

[Michael]

I agree cookie_monster. Microsoft aren't kidding when they say minimum requirements!

 

They should really do the recommended requirements which would be more valid in most scenarios.

[MkII]

Interesting read recently on roughlydrafted that made things a lot clearer for me.

 

Personally I've been shocked to see blue screens again from Vista. Brand new OS on certified Hardware, boot into the pre-made image for the first time - blue screen.

 

I'm a visual person, and am more than tired of XPs looks. But Vista doesn't attract. I really think of it as unnecessary fluff with no extra functionality or security.

[cookie_monster]

Did you actually get a blue screen? I thought MS had done away with that.

[cookie_monster]

Hmmmm The Rock isn't a very good film is it

[FN-GM]

I tried Vista but got pissed off with it. I got a blue screen many times, turned out it didn’t like my sound card. So I decided to buy one that properly supports Vista. Guess what more problems. The start menu crashed from time to time, and got worse. The issue with file copying got on my wick. Another issue was installing my printer. Then one day I thought why am I doing this? I don’t do anything in Vista that I can’t do in XP. So I decided to change back to XP.

 

Z

[localzuk]

My reasons for thinking vista is not a good upgrade option:

 

1. Realistic specs are too high. Most PC's in our school had 512Mb ram or less until last summer, when the new batch were bought which have 1GB.

2. It isn't very stable - random freezes and crashes are regular

3. The layout means a learning curve which hasn't been seen in the windows world since the transition from Windows 3.1.1 to Windows 95.

4. Backwards compatibility with 16bit and some 32bit apps is poor (ie. non-existent for 16bit). There is a lot of educational software that fits into this category.

5. Schools don't have the time or money to retrain people to use the new feel of the system. Many staff now feel comfortable doing things in the way they do. Changing this would lower productivity greatly.

6. SIMS.net is not supported on it as yet, nor is FMS.

7. Upgrading to Vista would also mean upgrading to Office 2007, as 2003 is not fully compatible with Vista from what I've read and been told. This also leads to problems with SIMS.net.

8. There is another release of Windows due out in 2010, which according to Microsoft, is on a strict timetable. Paying for the whole upgrade process now, when a new version will come out in 2 years is not a good idea. Especially as BSF will come in and steam-roller over everything.

9. The added security isn't an important factor for me, as my network is now secure enough to prevent unauthorised access, virus propogation etc...

10. Disk I/O problems are a pain in the neck. Unzipping a 2Mb file should take a few seconds, but instead could take upto 30 minutes. So a third party program has to be installed to get around this problem. File copying is the same, but a third party program couldn't solve this.

 

I'm sure there are a few more too.

[torledo]

I'm not over impressed but i'm starting to like it since i've stuck with it on my work desktop and it only has 1Gb of RAM. My main gripe is the need for 'at least' a 128 meg GPU just to run the jazzy new GUI features it's just too heavy.

 

-----------------------------------

@torledo

 

 

 

I would just like to add that although there are better firewalls if MS has turned it on by default then most of the 'worm' incidences of 2002/03 could of been avoided and should of been concidered essential. It should still be used now IMHO unless you sub it for something else or you have NAP you are open to potential problems.

 

You're right about the worm incidences......infact i believe it was the worst of the lot Sasser that triggered microsoft to include a firewall in sp2 - but i don't see it's use in corporate environments. If corporate firewalls were letting sasser through open ports in 2003/2004 what would windows firewall have done differently if Microsoft were unaware of the exploit ? Surely just as corporate firewall admins were reactive to the threat - so were microsoft by bundling a host fw in sp2. And the window firewall did nothing a perimeter firewall wouldn't do in the case of the worm attacks of a few years ago.

 

Also, if anyones actually implementing NAP i'd like to know.

[SYNACK]

You're right about the worm incidences......infact i believe it was the worst of the lot Sasser that triggered microsoft to include a firewall in sp2

 

Windows did already have a protection mechanism built into Windows XP in SP1 and I think even in the original release called ICF (internet connection firewall) which was quite capable of stopping the Sasser and Blaster worms but it was not enabled by default. SP2s inclusion of a more configurable and flashy firewall was I think mainly because of those worms but its main improvement, from a worm prevention standpoint was the fact that it was enabled by default.

[SimpleSi]

Many staff now feel comfortable doing things in the way they do. Changing this would lower productivity greatly.

 

And to echo many other comments - Vista doesn't bring enough useful features to make it appeal to professionals and its downsides cancel any improvements out.

 

I'm personally worried that MS will take the opportunity with XP SP3 to cripple XP systems (e.g require same hardware/memory that Vista needs) just to make Vista look attractive.

 

But if I'm lucky - no software will rely on SP3 and I can just stick with SP2

 

 

regards

 

Simon

[Pete10141748]

Ive been using Vista at home and at work for a few months now, and I have yet to report a single major productivity-reducing problem - honesty!

 

 

My Vista Basic laptop (1GB RAM, 2.0Gig AMD Sempron, no SP1 yet) runs Office 2003 with no problems, we have test installed SIMS and no complaints there, all our software works (as we left behind the old 16bit programs now anyway in favour of newer software, which frankly is better), our printers installed fine.

 

The only problem we've had is that one of the "Toner replacement" wizards doesn't work propery on Vista for one of our older printers - this printer is being replaced in a month anyway as it's 3+ years old, and leaking

 

 

 

My home PC runs Vista Home Premium (3GB RAM, 3.0Gig Intel Core2Duo, pre-SP1 as well) and while I'm aware that is well over the minimum spec, I haven't had a singe problem yet, and the kit means that (hopefully!) I'm somewhat future-proofed as well.. I hope!

All my software from my XP machine works, my printer installed without an issue, connects to my wireless, communicates with my xbox360........

Despite is being pre-SP1, I have had no real issue with the file transfer speeds / extracting / copying speeds.

 

The two very minor problems I have encountered so far;

1) Pubishing a Flash MX file as an animated .gif - the new Windows Media Viewer does not "play" the animation, but this was easily remidied by opening the file in something like GOM player instead, which I already use for other things anyway.

 

2) Twice IE7 has failed to open when I click on the icon - Task Manager say it is running, but no window opens. However, I suspect that this is (at least partly) the fault of IE7, not explicity Vista?

 

 

 

On the plus side, being a "visual" person, I love the look of Vista, and using XP now looks (and dare I say, almost feels) dated. I accept that the majority of people rely on "doing X this way as thats the way we have always done it using XP" which of course is fine; it's just not the way I think about it.

 

To me, an OS is merely another piece of software. I woudn't expect to get an new version of Flash, and it be exactly the same as the previous version; what would be the point?

I know that talking about Flash isn't the same as Windows, which people use everyday for everything, but in my mind the same applies. Just because something is different, doesn't make it bad, and as IT people I think we should be willing to look past the initial "change, oo-er, XP is good, don't want to move on" and so forth which is the general feeling I get from reading most of the posts in this section.

 

As for the additional hardware requirements, has it not already occured that other companies' software will being wanting more requirements as well?

I know most of the Educational software requires very little, and I agree that Vista for schools is not a good idea yet (mostly because of the cost of upgrading the hardware), but industry-standard software will only continue to get bigger and hungrier for resources - after all, it's how software and hardware developers make their money, isn't it?;

"Here's some new software - oh wait, you need to buy some more RAM to use it.... see out partner company X..."

 

I remember making this comment in a post a while ago somewhere, but I truely believe that most of the "Vista bashing" is down to fear of change, dependance on XP, and (for some non-techy folk) the fact that XP is all they have ever used (having not been using computers to go through the 95-98-ME-XP changes).

 

Closing comments; I love Vista. It's big, flash, good lookin' and pleasant to use provided you spend a little time to actually learn this new bit of kit.

 

[localzuk]

'Big Flash and good looking' isn't a good enough business case i'm afraid

[cookie_monster]

@ torledo: alot of corporate firewall became useless at this time as once a worm was inside the perimiter it was open season. People can bring in infected laptops or open email attachments you name it but if all the XP clients had the ICF enabled it would of provided another layer of protection as always your security should be multiple layers.

 

 

@ SYNACK: the first firewall 'Internet Connection Firewall' is the one i was really refering too this should of been on by default from day one in XP.

[Sirbendy]

I've got a vista drive and an Xp drive in my righ, and I pick and choose at boot what I wish to run.

 

Vista annoys me because of:

 

UAC - I got shot of it.

 

Clunkiness - WTF is the logic of putting "run" that deep in the menu? Arse.

 

Telnet? Arse.

 

"Java doesn't support Aero, you have been temporarily downgraded"? Arse.

 

"Media Corrupt, run Scandisk" on every USB drive? Arse.

 

Bloat - I'm sorry..11gb for a clean OS install? Laughter.

 

Execution speed - I don't want eye candy, I want quick. Kill some Aero effects and it's quick enough.

 

Ram needs - 1gb? Get stuffed. I have 2, I like having plenty left.

 

General needs - Aero? Bin. Do you use your OS, or look at it and admire the pretty? High end graphics? Bog off.

 

Plus the OS was late, the feature set isn't what it should have been, and for the time and effort, it should have been so much more...

 

That said, it's a nice change, and I can live with it..and XP does look dated in comparison, but I'm waiting for Windows 7 now...XPSP3 and Windows 7..Vista's just a bit of an "ME" blip in my view..

Edited March 20, 2008 by Sirbendy

[Ryan]

In my limited experience of Vista (normally fixing other peoples' laptops), i have only this to say:

 

It's certainly very shiny. I've used the classic gray interface for XP for years. It's a "get stuff done" environment. I don't need everything to look so fecking glossy thanks.

 

The constant hand-holding makes me want to cry. "Are you sure you want to install this?" "Are you sure you want to change this?" YES I'M BLOODY SURE.

 

It remains a pointless upgrade in my opinion.

 

Vista = XP, Now With Added Shiny!™

 

Arse.