Microsoft admits Vista failure

[_xxx_]

Vista has substantial changes underneath the surface that only a person who has used the o/s would know and appreciate (or dislike )

Like what?

 

[[maven]]

- (Somewhat) Privilege Separation
- Virtual Stores
- Non-stupid names (which don't differ from region to region) for "Users" (formerly Documents and Settings) and "Program Files"
- Multiple network profiles, complete with distinct firewall settings
- Noticeably waster wakeup / sleep cycles

Although quite a lot of these points are changes long overdue and in spite of Microsoft's efforts to make them wholly transparent / backward-compatible they are not entirely without problems. Not to mention Aero / DWM makes WoW jerky as well...

 

[Davros]

No hardware acceleration does not mean bad audio,.

does in my book
I dont want my cpu doing audio if i did i would of stuck with my mboard codec
trying to get eax 5 in software is going to hit the cpu hard
can the following effects even be mapped to openal ?

Multiple Environments
Environment Filtering
Environmental Panning
Environment Reflections
Environment Morphing
Pitch Shifting
Parametric Equalization
Normalization

 

[pjbliverpool]

I think Vista has many small improvements which while small, perhaps almost insignificant induvidually add up to make an overall better experience.

Some examples of improvements:

Sleep Mode
More aesthetically pleasing GUI
Icons which represent the files beneith
Previews of minmized windows in the task bar
Representitive icons in Alt-Tab
That roladex windows switcher (yes I actually like it!)
Nicer Start Menu
The games explorer (flawed but still better than nothing)
IE7 and MP11 as standard (I know you can get them for XP, but their is still something to be said for them coming as standard)
Built in Media Centre
Much better handling of CD/DVD copying without using a 3rd party programme
Better security
Improved calander date searching (selecting a particular months or year is far easier), plus Vista comes with a full calander programme built in unlike XP
Better speech recognition
Better slideshow transition effects
DX10

A lot of those improvements are minor, some are failry major, but together and along with all the other small imporvements they make for a much better OS IMO.

 

[BRiT]

A better OS, but not worth the $400 for Ultimate, perhaps $100 for Ultimate version would be fitting.

 

[Feces]

Thats strange..

I managed to buy 3 windows vistas already for my two new and one old computer, in contrast I never paid for xp in the past. In my book vista is what xp should have been a long time ago and is worth the $219 retail price. The sooner we drop everything but vista the better. Unless you got some critical software that wont run on vista there is no reason to build a xp system going forward.

Bottom line microsoft got my money because vista is good... We had the exact same stupid comments when windows xp came out and everyone said they would rather stay with Win2K because it was less bloat and faster. So much for that argument...

 

[pjbliverpool]

A better OS, but not worth the $400 for Ultimate, perhaps $100 for Ultimate version would be fitting.

I agree it is massively over priced however if you can get away with it then the OEM version is MUCH cheaper. I picked up Home Premium for £78.

 

[Rainbow Man]

Perhaps you should consider USING the product and speaking from personal experience comparing XP to Vista.

Yes sure. I'll go out right now and slap down several hundred dollars to try an OS first before I comment on it. That soulnds like a winning strategy!



No thansk buddy. No offense but that would be MADNESS.
If you were to build a house would you perhaps read some books on carpetry or ask a knowledgeable person for advice first or would your first reaction be to try it yourself first to see what it's like. Slap it together as best you can?

No of course not. There's a reason human civilization has become as successful as it is and that is to a very large extent the wrtten language.

Readin gand learning about something is not neccessarily inherently inferior to doing everything yourself youk now.

Undoubtedly some games seem to be slightly slower, but this is not the fault of the OS.

Are you sure?

Fromwhat I understand there's a lot of new background tasks and processes in vista. Surely that's going to consume CPU time that wasn't used in XP.

The o/s is hardly without faults but comparing it to WinME shows pure ignorance, a la Teh Inq's article.

Lucky me then that I never did that.
Winme was total crap. I sat with that POS for well over a year and had to reinstall it around every 3-4 months or so because it started acting really really WEIRD if the OS went a couple days without a restart. It was god awful to be honest and I can't imagine vista being quite that craptastic.

Still I'm not quite convinced it's a winner either.

Has everything about Vista been negative online? No it hasn't

I never claimed that. So what are you going on about?

The point is.. Vista's general prformance seems to be lower in almost every respect compared to XP. Anandtech published a networking article a couple months ago I believe. They explained the new networking stuff that was supposed to be better and faster.

In the end performance of vista was (much) lower than XP. It looks glitzy but what's the point if I have to upgrade mny system ust to reach the same performance level I have TODAY?

While DRM can be a problem, I have yet to personally experience this DRM hell that people like to bring up.

The problem with the DRM is that it allows outsiders to rule ove rour own systems. The mechanics built into vista allows the OS to override picture and sound quality and arbitrarily turn off outputs that are deemed "insecure". It is also possible from what I've read to revoke "licenses" to play back secure material remotely if the rights holder deems the user has somehow violated said licenses.

Now I don't know if MS/the powers that be actually enforces these mechanics just yet but just the fact THEYR'E THERE shows they have the intention to do so. Otherwise they wouldn't have put them in there.

ten years ago it would have been impossible to even suggest implementing such far-reaching security measures just for media files especially notwhen MS doesn't spend a tenth the effort to secure the user's own data in a similar manner.

It's a slippery slope we're sliding down with each step being minutely more severe than the previous. That orvellian "secure computing" stuff is already being implemented in chipsets today and will be fully eventually in harddrives and motherboards and flash devices and operating systems and everything. Essentually locking us out of our own systems.

Vista is just one of those steps on the way and it's a fairly major one. Unless we resist we WILL eventually have a situation where we have to pass through turnstiles and security checks to log into our PCs while authorities and media industry and MS has free backdoor access to all our stuff in the guise of "protecting society" and all that.

Peaxce.

 

[BRiT]

Unfortunately anything short of Business or Ultimate do not have Remote Desktop capabilities. That's a major deal breaker me.

 

[Gelanin]

Unfortunately anything short of Business or Ultimate do not have Remote Desktop capabilities. That's a major deal breaker me.

Use a 3'rd party software product for that then.....

And pricewise, you can pretty much buy the OEM version with anything else you get, so its not _that_ expensive, and considering the amount of time you use an OS, its not bad.

 

[BRiT]

So $200 a pop for a usable OEM Vista OS is not _that_ expensive?

I also need 3 system. No way am I spending $600 for that.

 

[Rainbow Man]

And pricewise, you can pretty much buy the OEM version with anything else you get, so its not _that_ expensive

You don't get any support with OEM versions. You need to contact MS for some reason they tell you to take a hike.

Besidest he OEMs are while not AS expensve still expensive. It'd be the most expensive piece of software I'd ever bought.

Peace.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

And pricewise, you can pretty much buy the OEM version with anything else you get, so its not _that_ expensive, and considering the amount of time you use an OS, its not bad.

OEM versions are more restrictive on their licensing, especially with regards to activation/reactivation in the event you change motherboards or otherwise upgrade enough hardware. Not that MS actually tells us the limits or guarantees that they won't move the goalposts at some point in the future.

 

[poopypoo]

why do people talk about DRM in Vista as if it was the brainchild and huge evil scheme of microsoft themselves? Do you people not realize some form of DRM has been infecting much of the media we buy for over the last decade? Why is it suddenly a total friggan shock that Microsoft was quite literally expected to and of course finally had to fully enforce DRMs in their new OS? It was bound to happen at some point.

This idea strikes me as false. MS were under no requirements to include DRM. They wanted to include it so they could attempt to re-corner the market on online distribution. It's not a bad idea for them -- but do I really have to think it's a great idea for the enduser?

I believe he uses the RTM version but I could be wrong.

...is there really a "Read teh Manual" version!? I want my customers to buy that one!

Probably not, but would she have had any more luck with XP in the first 6 months of its life?

I agree that XP was no cakewalk until pretty close to SP2. However, MS sounds like it's threatening to pull the plug early on XP. It might not happen -- I believe they'll have a big uproar on their hands if they do -- but I find it worrisome.

A better OS, but not worth the $400 for Ultimate, perhaps $100 for Ultimate version would be fitting.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[_xxx_]

Sleep Mode

A bit of convenience, but not really an important feature. And XP has hybarnate as well, so meh.

More aesthetically pleasing GUI
Icons which represent the files beneith
Previews of minmized windows in the task bar
Representitive icons in Alt-Tab
That roladex windows switcher (yes I actually like it!)
Nicer Start Menu
The games explorer (flawed but still better than nothing)

All non-features, just useless crap.

IE7 and MP11 as standard (I know you can get them for XP, but their is still something to be said for them coming as standard)

This is not a feature, but an insult. I'd sue them for that.

Built in Media Centre
Much better handling of CD/DVD copying without using a 3rd party programme

Not even worth mentioning.

Better security

Remains to be seen.

Improved calander date searching (selecting a particular months or year is far easier), plus Vista comes with a full calander programme built in unlike XP
Better speech recognition
Better slideshow transition effects

LOL, are you serious?

DX10

Well yeah, but that's just forced Vista-only, if they wanted, they could have done it in a somewhat similar manner for XP. Of course, I wouldn't expect them to invest money in developing that for XP, but nonetheless it's just their choice and a tool for forcing Vista on customers.

None of those (besides DX10) are substantial or even important in any way, it's all just smoke and mirrors.

 

[SugarCoat]

You don't get any support with OEM versions. You need to contact MS for some reason they tell you to take a hike.

Besidest he OEMs are while not AS expensve still expensive. It'd be the most expensive piece of software I'd ever bought.

Peace.

OEM versions are exactly that, vanilla software purchased in large quantity made to be resold by a licensed distributor of entire computers. Stand alone OEM versions of the OS arent even suppose to be bought or sold unless they're with a system. Microsoft mentioned they were going to be very strict on this prior to Vista's launch. If you have an issue with a product under an OEM license you're suppose to talk to the OEM dealer. The proper channel for this is when you buy a Dell PC you get an OEM version of Vista, if you have an issue, you call Dell tech support. The improper channel is having an issue with your OEM copy you got off newegg and trying to hold microsoft responsible. In terms of OEM parts and computers there are only a few that allow you to get service/support through the manufacturer and i know for a fact most OEM hardware parts come with, at best, a 30day warranty that the manufacturer will honor. I think one of the few exceptions of this are a couple HDD manufacturers.

Heres a tip i personally have with those complaining about this, SPEND THE EXTRA $40 FOR THE RETAIL VERSION. People calling something as expensive as a few new PC games that is updated and improved regularly and ment to be used for years too much money strike me as....illogical.

This idea strikes me as false. MS were under no requirements to include DRM. They wanted to include it so they could attempt to re-corner the market on online distribution. It's not a bad idea for them -- but do I really have to think it's a great idea for the enduser?

It can strike you anyway you like it to, but the fact of the matter is they're under pressure all the time from movie studios and more recently the investors of next gen formats to include as much content protection as they can. To them DVD protection failed, they want to make it even more strict. We're talking about the same groups that sue users for vast sums of money for downloading a single movie or install hidden spyware on all the music CDs they publish so this shouldnt be a shock to you. I honestly believe that microsoft itself could care less about loading an OS with more and more DRM. Keep in mind as well that the new DRM additions in vista (unmentioned is that forms of DRM have been in the last 2 windows version i believe) will really only be effecting the new formats, so playing stuff prior to this should be no different then it was on XP. By the time HD-DVD or Blu-Ray drives are common in the desktop PC no ones really going to care about Vista. Its literally a non-issue, but people who are asked why vista is bad use it as a cop-out all the time.

 

[poopypoo]

By the time HD-DVD or Blu-Ray drives are common in the desktop PC no ones really going to care about Vista. Its literally a non-issue, but people who are asked why vista is bad use it as a cop-out all the time.

I totally agree with this part -- but still -- DRM in Windows should have nothing to do with pressure from agencies to prevent piracy -- it's not in the slightest bit MS's responsibility if someone makes software allowing a Blu-Ray drive to run in Vista -- but everything to do with incentives from that same industry to be their distribution lapdog. Again, I'm not arguing that MS should bite the hands that feed them, but I think it'd be foolish to see MS as kowtowing to the demands of some two-bit media companies. If there is a "Big Media", MS is it.

 

[Maintank]

I dont understand people yapping about memory use. I never liked the fact in XP, I would have 2GB of ram and 400MBs are in use while the rest sits there twiddling their electronic thumbs.

When i beta tested Vista RC2, I was impressed the damn OS actually used my memory to cache commonly used applications. And the result was everything seemed noticeably faster.

/shrug

 

[Rodéric]

I dont understand people yapping about memory use. I never liked the fact in XP, I would have 2GB of ram and 400MBs are in use while the rest sits there twiddling their electronic thumbs.

When i beta tested Vista RC2, I was impressed the damn OS actually used my memory to cache commonly used applications. And the result was everything seemed noticeably faster.

/shrug

If the OS takes more memory that leaves less memory available for the applications, which goes against the principle of an OS, those being that the OS must allow greatest access to the hardware while consuming as little resources (CPU, RAM, HDD space) as possible.
Simple as that.

I already suffered from that effect while playing games and having noticable longer load times (paging love)...

 

[nutball]

If the OS takes more memory that leaves less memory available for the applications, which goes against the principle of an OS, those being that the OS must allow greatest access to the hardware while consuming as little resources (CPU, RAM, HDD space) as possible.
Simple as that.

Well hang on a minute, it's not quite as simple as that. Using otherwise unused memory as a file-system cache is a perfectly valid thing to do, and a quite widespread practice (Linux does it, for example, and I think that many other Unixes do too).

If implemented properly it shouldn't lead to any performance degradation -- the nanosecond the memory is required by an application it can be freed without incurring any disc I/O. I don't know how good the old Windows FS cache was, maybe that's part of the problem.

I think also it may just be a perception thing -- people see Windows using all the spare memory as an FS cache an presume that the OS has claimed all the memory and will never give it back, that it's part of the Windows bloat that they've read all about on the Internet. The OS using memory as an FS cache does not qualify as the OS consuming lots of resources IMO, it's a wise use of otherwise redundant resources to improve overall system performance (presuming that it's well implemented).