Microsoft not bothering to fix Vista

[Old Thrashbarg]

Well, from a marketing standpoint, they NEED to move on from Vista. Just the word Vista makes most people cringe.

Expanding on this, there's really no incentive for MS to improve Vista. There are basically three camps: the people who use Vista because it came with their computer and they don't know any better, the apologists who insist it works fine on their machine and everyone else should like it too, and the people who wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole regardless of what MS does to it. There are exceptions, of course, but not a great many.

In all those cases, what reason does MS have to fix Vista? The people who don't know any better probably wouldn't even notice if everything was fixed, the apologists will just continue to insist it didn't need to be fixed, and the people who hate it will continue to hate it (for legitimate reasons or otherwise). It's a bit late to change people's opinions on it, so it just doesn't make business sense for them to invest much more time or money into it when that time and money could be better used on something else.

 

[MRD]

Windows 7 is a new OS, Vista is actually BASED on Windows 7, Vista is pretty much a mashup of XP with Vista done in a hurry so they'd have something to sell while they finished Windows 7.

That's not AT ALL true. Vista was the successor, always has been. The underlying kernel in Vista is a complete rewrite. XP and 2K are actually quite similar under the hood, but Vista is totally different. This is why you can use 2K drivers in XP and vice versa in most cases, but never Vista drivers with the others. Windows 7 is a slightly modified version of Vista, with bug fixes, speed improvements, and some features they couldn't get to in time.

Check your kernel versions... that should give you a hint. (They all list as a version of NT.)

There's a reason it took 5 years between XP and Vista, and only a year or two between 2K and XP and between Vista and 7.

 

[Tumnus]

I've decided to take a chance on Vista....64-Bit is going to be up and running on my new laptop when it gets here later this week...I'm expecting a good product, but some of y'all make it sound as though this is giving microsoft too much credit.

 

[MRD]

If you have a powerful machine, it'll probably be fine. If you have a craptop / weaktop, then you will hate it. C2D w/ 2GB of RAM and decent video and you'll be fine. It won't be as fast as XP starting up, but surfing and stuff will be fine.

Just don't put it on anything with really weak graphics if you want to run Aero. You do not need a geforce 9800 or 280 or whatever, but sis integrated graphics or something will not cut it either. The newest intel integrated do ok, but the nvidia and ati options are superior.

 

[Jayws]

At this point I'm stuck between two possibilities... The possibly that Microsoft gets their s*** together (unlikely), and the possibility that linux gets some sort of decent support for playing directx games (also somewhat unlikely). I wonder which will happen first, I'm just hoping they aren't slated for when hell freezes over.

 

[Satsumomo]

do you have any sources for this?

Sorry, I had forgotten I had posted here at all!

I got my sources from the Wikipedia article on W7, which includes citations and source links to what's written there:

In 2000, Microsoft started the planning to follow up Windows XP and its server counterpart Windows Server 2003 (both codenamed Whistler) with a major new release of Windows that was codenamed Blackcomb (both codenames refer to the Whistler-Blackcomb resort). This new version was at that time scheduled for a 2005 release.[6][7]

Major features were planned for Blackcomb, including an emphasis on searching and querying data and an advanced storage system named WinFS to enable such scenarios. In this context, a feature mentioned by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates for Blackcomb was "a pervasive typing line that will recognize the sentence that [the user is] typing in."[8]

Later, Blackcomb was delayed and an interim, minor release, codenamed "Longhorn", was announced for a 2003 release.[9] By the middle of 2003, however, Longhorn had acquired some of the features originally intended for Blackcomb, including WinFS, the Desktop Window Manager, and new versions of system components built on the .NET Framework. After the 2003 "Summer of Worms", where three major viruses − Blaster, Sobig, and Welchia − exploited flaws in Windows operating systems within a short time period, Microsoft changed its development priorities, putting some of Longhorn's major development work on hold in order to develop new service packs for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. Development of Longhorn was also "reset" in September 2004..


So maybe it's not a mashup of XP with 7 as I said, but it was indeed a project that begun before Vista, and Vista is essentially different from 7, where Vista actually borrowed a lot of things from.

 

[MRD]

Longhorn ended up being delayed by many years, and the entire base was recoded, taking on nearly all of the features that were intended for the longer term release. So Vista is essentially Windows 7, and by the time it was released, Vista no longer resembled XP under the hood.

7 is just a tweaked, facelifted Vista.

 

[Xaero_toast]

I wanna kick microsoft in the nuts. Anyone know where I can find microsoft's nuts?

I would like to see microsoft come out with a version that makes me WANT to upgrade. Upgrading has always been something I HAD to do, to get a feature I could use.

I liked NT 4.0. It was solid, reliable, lean, and fast. I'm a power user, I don't need PnP functionality anyway.

2000 was PnP, DirectX, and improved hardware support (usb anyone?). It was kind of fat compared to nt4, but that didn't slow it down much. It didn't help that it didn't get real reliable until about SP3, either. I was reluctant to upgrade, but when I did, I ran 2000 for a long time.

I didn't touch XP until SP2, and even then, the only thing about it that impressed me was fast user switching, and remote desktop.

I've been tinkering recently with Vista, both in a VM at first, and more recently in a dual boot, so I can explore stuff like aero. It's a very "pretty" os, if you give a **** about "pretty". I don't. I'm playing with dual core, 3.0GHz, and 4GB ram, and Vista is a substantial performance hit,compared to XP. I expect a newer OS, with more features, to use a few more resources for itself, thus causing apps to run a little slower, but DAMN!! The installation is bloated as hell, too. More than 15GB just for the base installation? WTF is that? Holy Bloated Code, Batman!!! That's 10x more than XP. Vista SP1 just did not impress. My upgrade will be holding off until Vista SP2, to give it another chance to impress me, or until I just have to have 64 bit for one reason or another (no sense going to 64bit XP this late in the game...)

Seriously, though, the challenge I would like to put to microsoft is, put something in the next version that makes me WANT it.
Well, that, and show me where to find your nuts

 

[Captain Newbie]

I wanna kick microsoft in the nuts. Anyone know where I can find microsoft's nuts?

+1 for making me laugh.

I expect a newer OS, with more features, to use a few more resources for itself, thus causing apps to run a little slower, but DAMN!! The installation is bloated as hell, too. More than 15GB just for the base installation? WTF is that? Holy Bloated Code, Batman!!! That's 10x more than XP. Vista SP1 just did not impress. My upgrade will be holding off until Vista SP2, to give it another chance to impress me, or until I just have to have 64 bit for one reason or another (no sense going to 64bit XP this late in the game...)

I can't believe I'm going to apologize for Microsoft, but disk is cheap...

I don't like Vista any more or less than XP. I do like the fact that it's got a few more security 'features' but still sucks compared to Linux. (When will we get sane package management?)

 

[inkfx]

it will **** me off if they dont fix things like the folder views not sticking, the bug with your network card going to local access only..

Yeah I'm so fed up with the local access thing. If Vista didn't come with this laptop, I'd still be on XP.

I will most likely ditch Vista when 7 comes out.

 

[Nebulous]

Hmm, I have both Local and Net access with it, not a problem here. I'll take Win7 for a spin and check it out.

 

[inkfx]

Yeah most of the time I have both. Although every now and then it kicks me off the internet and goes to local only. That or it just gets stuck on local when I first boot, making me restart/wait until it gives me the net. Happens everywhere I go. It really irritates me.

 

[toddd240]

Yeah I'm so fed up with the local access thing. If Vista didn't come with this laptop, I'd still be on XP.

I will most likely ditch Vista when 7 comes out.

You may want to amend that quote....When Service pack 1 for Win7 comes out.

I always wait for the first service pack before switching MS OS's.

 

[doublejack]

+1 for making me laugh.

I can't believe I'm going to apologize for Microsoft, but disk is cheap...

I don't like Vista any more or less than XP. I do like the fact that it's got a few more security 'features' but still sucks compared to Linux. (When will we get sane package management?)

Not necessarily. Disk space is still quite expensive for a performance drive like a raptor, or for SSD storage. I spent literally hours paring down my Vista 64-bit install. My 150gb raptor formats around 139gb, and with nothing but Vista 64-bit SP1 on the drive I was hovering around 100gb in space left. That's appalling.

You might be surprised to see just how much bloat there is in Vista. Microsoft clearly thought like you did when it came to Vista's footprint, and that was a big mistake.

Longhorn ended up being delayed by many years, and the entire base was recoded, taking on nearly all of the features that were intended for the longer term release. So Vista is essentially Windows 7, and by the time it was released, Vista no longer resembled XP under the hood.

7 is just a tweaked, facelifted Vista.

Bingo. One could even accurately call Windows 7 more of a Windows Vista SE. This will not be like the transition from the dud known as WinME to the much better Win2k. Win7 will be much more closely related to Vista than that.

Really this is at least the fourth time Microsoft has released a turd for an OS. The first I can recall was Dos 6.2, which was almost immediately replaced by 6.22. Then there was Win98, which followed the mildly successful Win95 by going backwards in many areas. WinME's reputation is widely known for its lameness. And Vista might be the worst received of them all.

 

[jaymz9350]

Not necessarily. Disk space is still quite expensive for a performance drive like a raptor, or for SSD storage. I spent literally hours paring down my Vista 64-bit install. My 150gb raptor formats around 139gb, and with nothing but Vista 64-bit SP1 on the drive I was hovering around 100gb in space left. That's appalling.

Well anyone who buy the performance side know the price to space ratio is not good, in general disk space pretty cheap. considering you can get almost 10x the space for the money (based on my quick newegg search) with a 150 raptor and more compared with SSD. That's the price you pay for wanting the best.

 

[MRD]

SSD's are expensive... the problem is that they are not the best performers. SLC drives are but they are stupidly expensive (think $750 for 16 or 32 GB). MLC drives underperform PATA IDE drives in many scenarios. (Boot is fast, write is horribly slow, so I suppose it depends how much writing you do.) Also, for many, space isn't the issue. For me, I have a 64GB SSD as my system drive on my desktop. That's plenty for me. I even use it to dual boot. I keep all media/docs/etc on a fileserver anyways. So if I'm comparing a 64 GB SSD to a 300 GB raptor, the size dfiference is rather irrelevant, as I'll never use the 300. 4GB is another story though... that's not enough for an OS. 32GB is ok probably, although a bit cramped for a dual boot. 16GB is ok for a single OS, but a bit cramped. Anything less is worthless to me.

 

[Mediocre_man]

MRD made a statement that vista runs poorly with aero on lesser graphics hardware and with the built in solutions. I would like to offer another opinion. I have been using an HP dv2000 for some time now with a nvidia 6150 and it runs fine. I do aggree that vista is bloatware. But on the other side of the coin disk space is cheap. You all have to remember to microsoft wants a good user experience for for average joe and not us enthusiast. I work as a *cough* firedog tech *cough* and after showing most of my customers how vista is organized and arranged and I remove the crap that other manufacturers include in their PC's they are almost always happier with vista. It is much more organized and easier to find your programs and files. Vista may have some other problems but again, not to harp on the crap firedog thing, once I get something working in vista for a customer I almost never get a recall as opposed to XP where I get them all the time.

In short if your an industry tech then shut up, be smart and use nix. If your everyday average joe then vista works just fine for you.

P.S. All of us in here are major enthusiast and most are far smarter and skilled then most. We all know vista has it's problems. All OSes do. Stop complaining about it and just help others less knowledgable fix their problems. Because in the end you complaining isnt helping your grandmother out at all because Im the tech on the other side holding her hand, fixing her problems, and taking a lot of her money.

 

[liftedcj7on44s]

I can tell you from my time on Windows 7 is that yes it is similar to Vista but at the same time it runs a whole lot better than vista. For me boot time was pretty much the same. As far as how the OS reacts on desktop and running programs and moving files(large or small) it is much snappier. Programs open alot faster and run better. Soon i will be testing Crysis on Vista 64 and Windows 7 64 and let you guys know which one runs games faster. Maybe throw in some 3dmark Vantage in for the mix. I know 7 is not even to beta yet but from my standpoint right now it is better than xp and vista.

 

[Mr.Guvernment]

Never noticed the folder issue... heh.

I never have had problems with my connection going Local access only... is it specific to certain NICs?

i notice i alot as i have the same folders i go into often and is a 50/50 chance they will be something other then what i set.


vista seems to like detail view and seems to default to that.

 

[MRD]

I fix Vista by telling relatives who have underpowered computers to run XP, 2K, or Linux.

You cannot make an underpowered system perform well with Vista (anymore than a 486 can run XP). Software has requirements, and Vista's are a lot higher than 2K/XP or Linux.