Microsoft not bothering to fix Vista

[Xaero_toast]

I realize I'm paying a premium for faster storage, but cheap drive space for the masses doesn't give software developers carte blanche to write all the sloppy code they desire.

As a programmer, I know how much time is spent on code optimization. Microsoft has taken a wrong turn somewhere on this issue. Their recent OS's like XP and Vista have been OK when it comes to volatile memory and CPU utilization, but their use of persistent storage is not where it needs to be. XP is not that bad, but one can't say the same for Vista.

There's absolutely no reason for MS to include literally gigabytes of useless drivers within every Vista installation. Likewise, it is beyond wasteful to tie up additional gigabytes of storage with foreign language files for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. for an English-US install. These should either be options during installation, or left on the DVD with the user being prompted for the disc when/if necessary. Another complete waste of storage is the full 15% of your install partition that is dedicated to shadow storage - used to make backup copies of the registry and other Vista files. That's a flat 15%, regardless of how large or small the partition is.

This is why Vista has rightfully earned the reputation as bloatware. It was recklessly coded in terms of how resources are utilized. For a company like MS, that's scandalous, shameful work. Rather than write tight code that gets the most out of every byte of ram, they relied on cheap memory to get people by. Rather than write tight code that gets the most out of every CPU cycle, they relied on Intel and Moore's law to bail them out. Rather than intelligently select files for installation to the hard drive, MS relied on cheap large drives to eat up their bloated footprint. They need to do much better.

So very true. Vista only runs well on mid to high level newer hardware. And the sad part is the official specs from MS understate the requirements. I've been in the computer scene for a while now, and I've never seen such a huge gap between OS generations as between XP and Vista, in terms of their requirements. Then again, I've never seen MS release something as bloated as Vista is.

I have to say, though, Vista does run well on sufficiently powered machines. XP will run far better on slow hardware, but on fast hardware XP really has no edge at all.

Well said!! That was so well said, it's worth saying again!

Regarding the OS generation gap, NT4 to win2k was about the same leap (IMHO). NT4 weighed in at about 150MB, and was comfortably fast on 64MB. 2K weighed in just over a gig, and ran poor with less than 256MB. The difference then, was 2K had a lot to offer over NT4, enough (IMHO, again) to justify the hardware footprint. What does Vista offer for using over 10x more hard drive space, and needing over 4x more ram?

Many people I know never exceed 20GB total disk use.

That is true. I have a 750GB disk, and my xp sits in a 50GB partition that is only half full. My files are in another partition.

There are 2 things I like about that partition scheme. It keeps OS/apps on the fastest part of the disk, and with all my OS being in the first 50 GB (a rather thin slice of a 750GB), except when I'm accessing other files (infrequently) in the files partition, seek times are kept to a minimum as well.

 

[doublejack]

I agree that the edge quickly evaporates as the hardware becomes more powerful. It's less of an issue today because of the increases in hardware power over the last two years.

I can see why MS installs everything under the sun by default. Hard drives being sold today are simply enormous, and even a bloated OS takes a fraction of their available space. A terabyte is unde $100, and unless you store lots and lots and LOTS of media, you'll NEVER fill it. Many people I know never exceed 20GB total disk use.

While your assertions about cheap drives and how little space many users typically use are true, it doesn't forgive what MS did with Vista. For example, let's take the driver situation. Any way you slice it, it's a complete waste to put thousands of modem, printer, NIC, etc. drivers on the hard drive of every Vista install.

We're all grateful MS provides thousands of default drivers. It makes life a little easier for everyone. However, why couldn't they be automatically fetched from Microsoft's website as-needed? Most everyone has a 'net connection these days, and that's how Windows Updates are handled. Alternately, for people without internet connectivity the OS could prompt for the install DVD or OEM restore disc when hardware is added and it needs to load a packaged driver. A third option is to make the inclusion of the driver library optional during install, if MS would bother offering an "advanced" install option as they used to with their software.

Not only are my suggestions arguably just as user friendly, but they offer the advantage of more easily installing an updated driver rather than a possibly flawed older one. Particularly if MS went with the first option I gave and put the drivers on their website.

"Vista" is the new definition of "bloatware", and it is because of the synonymous nature of those two terms that MS is running away from the name.... and running as quickly as they possibly can. Vista is Microsoft's biggest disaster since "Bob". Hopefully this lesson has been learned, and Windows 7 won't continue Vista's wicked excess.

 

[hafa]

While your assertions about cheap drives and how little space many users typically use are true, it doesn't forgive what MS did with Vista. For example, let's take the driver situation. Any way you slice it, it's a complete waste to put thousands of modem, printer, NIC, etc. drivers on the hard drive of every Vista install.

We're all grateful MS provides thousands of default drivers. It makes life a little easier for everyone. However, why couldn't they be automatically fetched from Microsoft's website as-needed? Most everyone has a 'net connection these days, and that's how Windows Updates are handled. Alternately, for people without internet connectivity the OS could prompt for the install DVD or OEM restore disc when hardware is added and it needs to load a packaged driver. A third option is to make the inclusion of the driver library optional during install, if MS would bother offering an "advanced" install option as they used to with their software.

Not only are my suggestions arguably just as user friendly, but they offer the advantage of more easily installing an updated driver rather than a possibly flawed older one. Particularly if MS went with the first option I gave and put the drivers on their website.

"Vista" is the new definition of "bloatware", and it is because of the synonymous nature of those two terms that MS is running away from the name.... and running as quickly as they possibly can. Vista is Microsoft's biggest disaster since "Bob". Hopefully this lesson has been learned, and Windows 7 won't continue Vista's wicked excess.

I must respectfully disagree. I'd much rather have the drivers and language packs on the HDD, ready to go. Vista's driver and language pack/IME availability is a strong point IMHO. It's finally realized the concepts of "plug and play" and global usability.

The definition of "bloatware" needs to be rewritten as a function of the percentage of space available on the largest commercially available hard drive.

 

[Xaero_toast]

The definition of "bloatware" needs to be rewritten as a function of the percentage of space available on the largest commercially available hard drive.

By that definition, as long as they keep making bigger pants, no one will ever be fat.



How much space do the drivers take up? Since they're only needed when a piece of hardware is installed, it would make sense for it to be a choice whether or not to install them. Some people would want them, others would not. I, for one, don't think it is that big of a deal to have to put in a cd, or hit a website when I need a driver, and I wouldn't mind saving the space.

The idea that the bloat is acceptable because of the size of current hard drives is just an excuse. Just because you have something in ample supply, is not an excuse to use it wastefully.

 

[johnz]

I like being able to plug in a piece of hardware, and have it just work. If that costs me $3 in disk space, so be it. It's not wasted space, you're paying(not very much) for convenience.

 

[hafa]

By that definition, as long as they keep making bigger pants, no one will ever be fat.

Nice non-sequitur, but an entirely inapt analogy. Technology moves forward and will continue to do so. There's a reason why we're not all running 8086 processors with 1MB of RAM any more as well. It's like folks who whine about Vista's RAM use. Spend $18 on 2GB generic RAM and get over it already.

 

[krishcanag]

Just ordered vista 64, !!!! might end up been a waste of money

 

[hafa]

Just ordered vista 64, !!!! might end up been a waste of money

It should run fine on your system; just get another 2GB of RAM to get the full benefits of a 64-bit OS. Read the various threads here to see how to turn off the annoyances and you'll be in for a good experience.

 

[mbentley]

I must respectfully disagree. I'd much rather have the drivers and language packs on the HDD, ready to go. Vista's driver and language pack/IME availability is a strong point IMHO. It's finally realized the concepts of "plug and play" and global usability.

The definition of "bloatware" needs to be rewritten as a function of the percentage of space available on the largest commercially available hard drive.

it is definitely nice to install the OS and not have to install all of the drivers. sure, when i do a new install of windows i will still download my own chipset drivers and video drivers, but the rest i pretty much let windows take care of.

to me, bloatware still is considered all of the crap that you can find on your system when you buy it from a manufacturer that gives you 100 useless free trials and software that starts up behind the scenese in your system tray which makes your computer feel 10x slower than it really is.

I like being able to plug in a piece of hardware, and have it just work. If that costs me $3 in disk space, so be it. It's not wasted space, you're paying(not very much) for convenience.

+1 having basic drivers to just let things work is nice if you ask me. there is a reason why microsoft has certified drivers. it means that they have been tested and are proven to work well (in all cases i have personally seen). sure you might not get the drivers where you can optimize your graphics for a game you are playing but 95% of the people out there do not care about optimizing their video drivers. they just want their system to work out of the box. you have to keep in mind that those people like us who are wanting to install our own drivers and we do it in a specific order, etc, etc are a rare breed of computer user

Nice non-sequitur, but an entirely inapt analogy. Technology moves forward and will continue to do so. There's a reason why we're not all running 8086 processors with 1MB of RAM any more as well. It's like folks who whine about Vista's RAM use. Spend $18 on 2GB generic RAM and get over it already.

very true. i have noticed on my own system that vista loves ram. the more that you throw at it, the faster it runs. i went from 2 to 4gb and i noticed some improved speeds. the system was overall snappier like it was with a windows xp install. it isn't a big deal to have to get more ram considering the price these days.

 

[MRD]

to me, bloatware still is considered all of the crap that you can find on your system when you buy it from a manufacturer that gives you 100 useless free trials and software that starts up behind the scenese in your system tray which makes your computer feel 10x slower than it really is.

+1... that's the bloatware that everyone hates. One of the top ideas on Dell's Ideastorm page was the option to purchase bloatware-free computers.

I don't mind the drivers either, although I suppose you really just need basic operating drivers and network drivers, and the rest can be downloaded and installed by MS update.

 

[Captain Newbie]

Nice non-sequitur, but an entirely inapt analogy. Technology moves forward and will continue to do so. There's a reason why we're not all running 8086 processors with 1MB of RAM any more as well. It's like folks who whine about Vista's RAM use. Spend $18 on 2GB generic RAM and get over it already.

In other words: Get a REAL computer.

(oh snap)

+1... that's the bloatware that everyone hates. One of the top ideas on Dell's Ideastorm page was the option to purchase bloatware-free computers.

I always say that only squares buy OEM-integrated systems and use their software... (by the way, the business machines we buy from Dell at $WORK don't come with the cruft.)

 

[MRD]

Except laptops... no real choice there. Though you can reformat the drive.

 

[mbentley]

at any company with an IT department worth a darn, the first thing that they will do is wipe the hard drive and put on an image of their standard software. the last thing i would want to do is try to support all different brands of software that all accomplish the same goal... (cd burning software, dvd playback, wireless network connections, word processing, etc)

i can't imagine how slow my work laptop would be if i had to deal with their standard software from work + all the crap that HP puts on their laptops...

 

[Captain Newbie]

at any company with an IT department worth a darn, the first thing that they will do is wipe the hard drive and put on an image of their standard software. the last thing i would want to do is try to support all different brands of software that all accomplish the same goal... (cd burning software, dvd playback, wireless network connections, word processing, etc)

i can't imagine how slow my work laptop would be if i had to deal with their standard software from work + all the crap that HP puts on their laptops...

At my previous workplace (~60,000 users) we had a Big Company Common Image that was created with the help of Microsoft and HP (our hardware vendor). It worked great: no cruft, no muss, no fuss.

For whatever reason, home users are not typically extended the same courtesy. I think it has to do with trying to monetize us some more

 

[Trombe]

I found that buying a Dell server with no OS came with no bloatware at all

 

[MRD]

It's because there isn't the same need for uniformity with home users. They don't have 4000 computers they are trying to support.

I just bought an Ubuntu laptop from Dell. Supposedly those don't have any bloatware (or very little) as most of it is not written for Linux.

 

[hafa]

Except laptops... no real choice there. Though you can reformat the drive.

+1 for reformatting. Even the laptops that we sell to home users get a clean OS install right off. Folks notice and tell their friends how incredibly fast "our" laptops are compared to the competition's.