Why Vista sucks
-
I honestly cannot see anything that is going to force me to move to Vista in the next 18-24 months, the timeframe for Windows 7. I'm buying a Mac for home and will be running parallels so if Microsoft brings out a 'Oh My God I Must Have That" application I'll run it under parallels. And if Windows 7 is just too plain horrible for words, or is a mess, or there's something way better than Windows 7 out there that the industry is moving to because of increased productivity, usefulness, or just a "It's time for a change" then I'll be flexible and move along too. I truly do hope, though,that before Windows 7 gets too far along Microsoft goes into the room of mirrors, sits down, and has a good, hard look.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
We poor dinosaur bastards still developing client applications :(
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
In a way, yes. I selected Vista Home (vs. a more expensive alternative) when I ordered the laptop since I knew I was going to blow it away. I installed XP from my MSDN subscription (which I got for free from Microsoft). /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Music | Articles | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
he clicks 'OK' like he's been trained to click OK to everything
Yep, same thing with my father in law. The terms are not things he even understands. When in doubt, click OK.
Gary
They are mere obstacles that offer feeble resistance to a user's pursuit to achieve his goal. Waste no time reading those. In many cases, even many of us tech literates end up doing the same thing. Although, we may realize the folly immediately after we hit the OK button.
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
It's a matter of old UI behaviour being wrapped and hidden by extra layers of superfluous UI.
Yeah. The way I figure it, Steve Balmer's boyfriend must ask him to wear two c.... for extra protection, and that sort of made its way into the Vista philosophy. ok, that was my sick and twisted comment for the week. Marc
-
I honestly cannot see anything that is going to force me to move to Vista in the next 18-24 months, the timeframe for Windows 7. I'm buying a Mac for home and will be running parallels so if Microsoft brings out a 'Oh My God I Must Have That" application I'll run it under parallels. And if Windows 7 is just too plain horrible for words, or is a mess, or there's something way better than Windows 7 out there that the industry is moving to because of increased productivity, usefulness, or just a "It's time for a change" then I'll be flexible and move along too. I truly do hope, though,that before Windows 7 gets too far along Microsoft goes into the room of mirrors, sits down, and has a good, hard look.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
I honestly cannot see anything that is going to force me to move to Vista in the next 18-24 months
With an MSDN subscription, and with the machine used for development purposes, it is not much of an issue. But, home users buying a new computer have some issues. For example: Dell will not sell a home computer/notebook with XP on it. The alternative available is to buy a business computer that is priced much higher for a similar configuration.
-
I bought it by choice and it works 10 times better than XP.
I may be Green, but at least I'm environmentally friendly.
-
Well, Agree 1000 % I would not be worried about Vista, My software has neither Use nor Need for it, if it were not for the fact that Microsoft has decided to forcefeed us all with Vista, seeing that people are reluctant to buy it voluntarily. One wonders why people shun it. Existing Applications Fail because newly introduced or newly enforced rules, and, maybe there is a case for it all in Corporate America. (I always look in disbelieve at the NewRiders Series, where they mention a Small subsidiary having only 15000 Computers). In Europe, bar a few Notable exceptions, a company having 50 computers would be very large indeed. The businesses I deal with have mostly only one, some have two, but five would be the maximum. Security Policies and all that sort of crap is something to us here that seems to have been written in cloud cooko land. All those complicated security systems are at best an overkill, and at worst a terrible nuisance that you may spend hours on to eradicate from a new system. Windows XP was ideal. It actually worked as Specified, and Recommended (but did not Enforce) the Build for XP Standard. I have been advised by my own legal team that the likely outcome could well be that Buying Vista Pre Installed, and overwriting it with a Counterfit Copy of XP may be quite accepable under European law, on the grounds that: 1. Microsoft does Not loose Out financially because Vista is Paid for, 2. Microsoft provided a Product,(XP) on a wide scale, many products provided by businesses not controlled by microsoft rely for its Marketabiliy On the availability of XP on New Machines) 3. The Alternative Provided by Microsoft does Not provide Full Compatibility (i.e. Code will Break) 4 Microsoft Stopped selling XP. 5. Given Microsoft's Market Dominance, the Stopping of Selling XP and replacing it with an incompatible product would be seen as an act of abusing their dominant position, and any act that smaller entities take to protect their position in the face of this, (such as passing on Counterfit Copies of Windows XP in order to keep Software going) would be seen by the courts as a fair response in the face of adversary practice by a Dominant Market Force
Bram van Kampen
And this thinking is one reason why I will never understand either the mindset of the EU or Lawyers :) You paid for Vista, not XP. They were separate development efforts with separate budgets and separate profit statements no doubt. You cannot buy one and then feel justified that there was no financial loss from not paying the other. If that was the case you would be free to grab a hacked copy of any new version of office as long as you had purchased Office 97 years ago. MS made their money off of you already right? As far as your point #3, I think in the grad scheme of things they ultimately introduced the concept of 'do what we told you to do years ago' and then they put things in place to enforce it. Why? Because PEOPLE bashed them for having insecure software when sometimes it was not their fault, it was the fault of application developers using things in a way that exposed holes in the underlying code. If my garage door does not come with a lock built in and I tell you that and recommend that you add a lock or put a gate at the end of your driveway and you choose as a home builder not to do that then whose fault is it is stuff gets stolen form the garage? Mine or the builders? Now all of a sudden I get tired of being blamed for it and I start building my garage doors with locks in them, but they are locks that automatically lock behind you so that you can't NOT lock them but people get pissed off because many of them leave their keys in the garage and get locked out whose fault is it again? Sorry folks... To me the answer is simple. You don't like it? Vote with your wallet and use Linux. YOU can try to teach your grandparents how to use all the freeware opens source crap that tries to fill the void between Windows and Linux and YOU can try explaining to them how to do this and that when Windows used to just do it for you. I know it is not politically correct in business to do so but sometimes you need to just say 'if you don;t like it go somewhere else' and get it over with. If I had been running the Vista show I would have said you know what? This is new. This is the start of the next wave of how things are going to be and we need to treat it like it is. NO more backwards compatibility. NO more crap. NO more this and that... Vista is NEW. End of story. It was NOT MS as a whole that messed it up. It was the Marketing department that did it. THEY wanted to try to make everyone able to run it when that was clearly NOT it's intent form the start. It was such a major shift that it should have nev
-
It is obvious from other responses that not all feel that way. Not offering XP is just a way to ensure wider Vista adoption. I have a feeling that users may latch on to the any available alternative if MS continues with this policy. If a software that is critical to my business runs on XP, I want to buy a new machine with XP. Just being unsure whether the software will run on Vista gives me enough reason not to buy it. MS should have offered XP for at least a couple of more years until users became comfortable with Vista.
Thomas George wrote:
MS should have offered XP for at least a couple of more years until users became comfortable with Vista.
While I agree with this the longer they offer XP the lees likely people are to switch and this just really ends up delaying adoption. Just look at the folks out there that are STILL running Windows 98 or 95...
Thomas George wrote:
Not offering XP is just a way to ensure wider Vista adoption.
I agree with this and as I said in my other post I think this is the fault of the MS marketing Juggernaut, not the typical mindset of MS as a company. Personally I thin there is a reason why Bill is taking leave. I think that deep down he feels that he has lost control over the company that he started and wants to move on. Companies are like kids. You do what you can but in the end they get a life of their own and you can no longer drive their direction. At some point it is time to move on. I think Bill has done that because of this. I consider Vista the app that broke Bills resolve.
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
Vista is meant to be easier and it's not. It's not a matter of getting used to a new UI.
M$ basically re-invented the wheel, and now this means for us that we need to "learn" how to use the wheel. :rolleyes: Not to add the bloat and the sci-fi glassy user interface. I'd be happy if they could put half the time into making the OS more usable and faster than trying to make it pretty. There is just absolutely *NO REASON* why I should use Vista (other than that my client is using it, for no reason and my program has to run on it and so I'll have to test it on Vista). [ADD] Haha. Low votes... I'll be happy if the down voters care to explain a thing or two on why they disagree with me. :rolleyes: [/ADD]
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
modified on Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:40 AM
-
Great in theory, and this is exactly how Microsoft wants it to be used. But it's not how Vista Home Premium came setup on his HP. He's running as the only user on the machine and he has admin rights. UAC pops up and he clicks 'OK' like he's been trained to click OK to everything 'Allow a cookie to be saved?' OK 'Allow this application to run?' OK 'Allow this installer to install a rootkit, key word logger, spamware, mallware, mail forwarder full spam zombie setup and worm factory?' *click* OK.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Then this is an education issue, not really (at its root) a product issue. In actuality it is a problem because there are idiots. But a more secure system and the world will spin up a few more creative a******s. The alternative to UAC is what we had with XP. Running as admin lets anything happen. The entire thing could be solved by making all applications static. No more rich application like environments in IE or Word or Excel.. You buy an application and you get an application. No scripting, nothing. Lets play a game here... What would you do? The rules to the game? 1) You can't not allow the actions because that breaks backward compatibility that will make users (and developers) scream that you are stifling them and the medium. 2) You obviously can't just allow everything because that makes you too open to security criticisms. 3) Be realistic. You can't do away with every malware writer in the world. No matter how much you want to. 4) The last and final rule is that I get to change the rules any time I want to. Why? Because I am the consumer and the consumer is always right. Sometimes I want security, sometimes I don't. Go on... build it better.
-
Vista has too much crap in it. At least we can turn off the UAC and get rid of that stupid eye-candy crap. However, the file manager sucks. I hate it. I agree with what someone else said - we need a switch labeled "Make it look and work like XP".
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Chris Maunder wrote:
I honestly cannot see anything that is going to force me to move to Vista in the next 18-24 months
With an MSDN subscription, and with the machine used for development purposes, it is not much of an issue. But, home users buying a new computer have some issues. For example: Dell will not sell a home computer/notebook with XP on it. The alternative available is to buy a business computer that is priced much higher for a similar configuration.
Thomas George wrote:
Dell will not sell a home computer/notebook with XP on it. The alternative available is to buy a business computer that is priced much higher for a similar configuration.
So that is Microsoft's fault? MS is still letting them sell XP on their business systems. You think that MS is requiring them to sell Vista ONLY on their home systems?
-
They are mere obstacles that offer feeble resistance to a user's pursuit to achieve his goal. Waste no time reading those. In many cases, even many of us tech literates end up doing the same thing. Although, we may realize the folly immediately after we hit the OK button.
-
...for my parents. My parents got a new laptop which has Vista installed. The want to download a sidebar gadget because they want to play with the cool new Vista stuff. (Does someone at the Live.com gadget gallery think that maybe, just maybe, a "Search" option would help in that gallery?) So they eventually find a gadget, hit download, and the Save As dialog appears. Up the top is "> Username > Downloads". They aren't familiar with downloads and just want to save it to Desktop. So they click that address box (by clicking on the 'Downloads' part) and nothing happens. so they click the down-arrow at the end and the address changes to "C:\Users\Username\Downloads" plus other options below it, such as http://www.codeproject.com, nytimes and skype. This is the 'Save As' dialog. They are trying to save a download to the desktop. They are, as far as they can tell, being offered a chance to save the download to CodeProject.com. Eventually it's worked out that the 'Browse Folders' button at the bottom will show them the desktop folder and they can save. I don't even bother making excuses or trying to explain this kind of behaviour any more. I just say "Let me know if you want me to wipe it and get you a copy of XP". Vista is meant to be easier and it's not. It's not a matter of getting used to a new UI. It's a matter of old UI behaviour being wrapped and hidden by extra layers of superfluous UI.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Huh? That has nothing to do with "why". :confused:
-
Well, Agree 1000 % I would not be worried about Vista, My software has neither Use nor Need for it, if it were not for the fact that Microsoft has decided to forcefeed us all with Vista, seeing that people are reluctant to buy it voluntarily. One wonders why people shun it. Existing Applications Fail because newly introduced or newly enforced rules, and, maybe there is a case for it all in Corporate America. (I always look in disbelieve at the NewRiders Series, where they mention a Small subsidiary having only 15000 Computers). In Europe, bar a few Notable exceptions, a company having 50 computers would be very large indeed. The businesses I deal with have mostly only one, some have two, but five would be the maximum. Security Policies and all that sort of crap is something to us here that seems to have been written in cloud cooko land. All those complicated security systems are at best an overkill, and at worst a terrible nuisance that you may spend hours on to eradicate from a new system. Windows XP was ideal. It actually worked as Specified, and Recommended (but did not Enforce) the Build for XP Standard. I have been advised by my own legal team that the likely outcome could well be that Buying Vista Pre Installed, and overwriting it with a Counterfit Copy of XP may be quite accepable under European law, on the grounds that: 1. Microsoft does Not loose Out financially because Vista is Paid for, 2. Microsoft provided a Product,(XP) on a wide scale, many products provided by businesses not controlled by microsoft rely for its Marketabiliy On the availability of XP on New Machines) 3. The Alternative Provided by Microsoft does Not provide Full Compatibility (i.e. Code will Break) 4 Microsoft Stopped selling XP. 5. Given Microsoft's Market Dominance, the Stopping of Selling XP and replacing it with an incompatible product would be seen as an act of abusing their dominant position, and any act that smaller entities take to protect their position in the face of this, (such as passing on Counterfit Copies of Windows XP in order to keep Software going) would be seen by the courts as a fair response in the face of adversary practice by a Dominant Market Force
Bram van Kampen
You do know you can turn a lot of the "Vista" stuff off, right? I freely admit that Microsoft should have provided a big "run like XP" button. (If Office 2007, they should have added a "give me the Office 2003 menus and toolbars" button.) I don't think Vista is quite there yet, and I really like XP, but to assert that "XP was ideal" is crazy talk. I curse it all the time for some of its dumbness. You ever notice how many crap services it starts by default? And why can't Microsoft kill Netbeui dead once and for all?
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Maybe something is wrong with me. But I really like Vista. ( I might be the only one ) For example. My dad got Vista on his new computer he got last year and it have saved ME a lot of work trying to fix the system. Since he is a click on everything guy. So when he is trying to delete\move files that he should not delete or change something he should not. He will now be presented with a UAC dialog but since he is running a standard user he can't just click "Okey". He needs to enter a password and he know that if he needs to enter that, Then he done something bad. And the "Previous Version" feature have saved him a lot of times because he often opens an old document and use it as a template when writing a new one and often he forget to do "save as" and he overwrites his old document. But now he can retrieve it fast with doing "previous version" on the folder. But I have to admit that It took me a day to show him how all the new stuff worked, And now when he been using it for some month and got used to it, I get less support calls from him then when he was running XP. But not everything is good with Vista. For example the new explorer was not my friend for a while. It took some time to get used to. ------ A satisfied Vista user.
That reminds me of the time my dad sent an email to his sons asking what all those files were in System32 and if he could just delete them. You don't know how tempted the four of us were to say "yes" and then change our phone numbers.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Bram van Kampen wrote:
In Europe, bar a few Notable exceptions, a company having 50 computers would be very large indeed.
A few exceptions? I wouldn't call a medium sized business of 100-400 staff "very large indeed". I've dealt with quite a few companies of that size in the past few years, and believe me they are pretty commonplace in the UK.
Anna :rose: Linting the day away :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
Yes, But there are far more companies with less than 20 employees. Not every Employee has of nescessity a Computer. Our Core business has 9 Employees (Most Part Time) We have 3 Computers, Most are shared between employees. That gives no conflicts, because no computer is personalised. After an employee physically completes a Task, he or she goes to a free terminal, and signs on (No, Not in the MS Windows Sense, God forbid, All Terminals run in Administrator Mode), and fill in on a form, the work they've just completed. All I'm trying to say is that the Windows Security model seems to revolve around a particular business model, i.e.of Sales Reps diving in and out of Office Suites. Not every business works like that. Our business for instance, has No sales Reps, and absolutely No Need for this virtualised efford. Actually, it poses a security risk to us, as a suitably informed individual (Manager) could set up his own enterprise within our business, and take home 'His' Takings. I think a proper resolution of this problem would be if one could 'Exclude' at the point of installation of Vista, the possibility of Multiple Users.
Bram van Kampen
-
Bram van Kampen wrote:
What's wrong with an Option in Vista like 'Works Like XP'
It's to expensive. (That doesn#t mean I don't want to have it, too! :D)
Bram van Kampen wrote:
If it had that option for most of us in Europe who have no need for the useless new security features,
How is Europe different in that respect?
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
It's to expensive. (That doesn#t mean I don't want to have it, too!
Don't Accept that Its part of Customer Service when you provide an Upgrade. Apart from that, WindowsXP was the Very First OS issued by MS which actually worked as advertised
peterchen wrote:
How is Europe different in that respect?
Well, The Windows Security model was Designed in the USA, for All I can tell, Probably by the Military, and the CIA. Business Models are Different in Europe. I've Yet to find a computer here that does not run in Administrator Mode. The fundamental problem is that it seems to centre arount the issue, of Which individual has access to What File, without considering the reasons. The Concept that Access should be granted on the basis of what someone was going to do with the data, was never accepted,or incorporated in the Security Model. i.e. A Bank Teller should have access to a Customers account in order to carry out a Counter Lodgment or Withdrawl. The same teller should not nescesarily have access to print out a list of All Customers, their Details and Balances. This sort of Access Control is not available under the Windows Security Model, so, the Banking Application Software has to implement it's own security, and everybody is logged on as Administrator. What happens now with the 'Additional' protections under Vista is that it stops Software from working, Money will have to be spent to find a Work Around, but it Won't give any aditional security.
Bram van Kampen
-
I bought it by choice and it works 10 times better than XP.
I may be Green, but at least I'm environmentally friendly.
Youre Lucky
Bram van Kampen
-
And this thinking is one reason why I will never understand either the mindset of the EU or Lawyers :) You paid for Vista, not XP. They were separate development efforts with separate budgets and separate profit statements no doubt. You cannot buy one and then feel justified that there was no financial loss from not paying the other. If that was the case you would be free to grab a hacked copy of any new version of office as long as you had purchased Office 97 years ago. MS made their money off of you already right? As far as your point #3, I think in the grad scheme of things they ultimately introduced the concept of 'do what we told you to do years ago' and then they put things in place to enforce it. Why? Because PEOPLE bashed them for having insecure software when sometimes it was not their fault, it was the fault of application developers using things in a way that exposed holes in the underlying code. If my garage door does not come with a lock built in and I tell you that and recommend that you add a lock or put a gate at the end of your driveway and you choose as a home builder not to do that then whose fault is it is stuff gets stolen form the garage? Mine or the builders? Now all of a sudden I get tired of being blamed for it and I start building my garage doors with locks in them, but they are locks that automatically lock behind you so that you can't NOT lock them but people get pissed off because many of them leave their keys in the garage and get locked out whose fault is it again? Sorry folks... To me the answer is simple. You don't like it? Vote with your wallet and use Linux. YOU can try to teach your grandparents how to use all the freeware opens source crap that tries to fill the void between Windows and Linux and YOU can try explaining to them how to do this and that when Windows used to just do it for you. I know it is not politically correct in business to do so but sometimes you need to just say 'if you don;t like it go somewhere else' and get it over with. If I had been running the Vista show I would have said you know what? This is new. This is the start of the next wave of how things are going to be and we need to treat it like it is. NO more backwards compatibility. NO more crap. NO more this and that... Vista is NEW. End of story. It was NOT MS as a whole that messed it up. It was the Marketing department that did it. THEY wanted to try to make everyone able to run it when that was clearly NOT it's intent form the start. It was such a major shift that it should have nev
Ray Cassick wrote:
And this thinking is one reason why I will never understand either the mindset of the EU or Lawyers You paid for Vista, not XP. They were separate development efforts with separate budgets and separate profit statements no doubt. You cannot buy one and then feel justified that there was no financial loss from not paying the other. If that was the case you would be free to grab a hacked copy of any new version of office as long as you had purchased Office 97 years ago. MS made their money off of you already right?
No, Not the Case. You can Downgrade, Not Upgrade, if you bought a supposedly superior newer copy which does nor work. If you buy and pay for a copy of Office 2005, it does not work on your computer for any reason, but you find a copy of Office 97, which does work, you would be entitled to run Office 97 under the Licence of Office 2005, on the grounds that Office 97 is an Ancestor of Office 2005, which works on your system, and you accept that Office 97 may have fewer features, and that Office 97 may have issues of any kind which were resolved by the time Office 2005 came about. You can NEVER use a Licence for say Office 97, to legitimately run a Hacked Copy of Office 2005. By the same token, It would be legal here to buy a machine with Vista installed, wipe the Vista, and install Win98 instead. Microsoft would not be required to give me support in doing so, Any Driver issues would be My problem, in conclusion, I would be out on my Own. About the Legality of it all, In Europe this would be perfectly legal. I Frankly do not understand why this would be illegal in the US. I think if you investigate it a bit further, it may be legal there too Regards,
Bram van Kampen
