Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

20 Things You Won't Like About Vista

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the keep-counting dept.

771

feminazi writes "Computerworld's Scot Finnie details 20 things you won't like in Windows Vista, with a visual tour to prove it. He says that MS has favored security over end-user productivity, making the user feel like a rat caught in a maze with all the protect-you-from-yourself password-entry and 'Continue' boxes required by the User Account Controls feature." From the article: "In its supreme state of being, Microsoft knows precisely what's best for you. It knows that because its well-implemented new Sleep mode uses very little electricity and also takes only two or three seconds to either shut down or restart, you want to use this mode to 'turn off' your computer, whether you realize it or not. It wants to teach you about what's best. It wants to make it harder for you to make a mistake."

cancel ×

771 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Slashdot through the looking glass? (5, Funny)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447024)

He says that MS has favored security over end-user productivity, making the user feel like a rat caught in a maze with all the protect-you-from-yourself password-entry and 'Continue' boxes required by the User Account Controls feature."

Interesting - I'm reading an article on slashdot that's criticising MS for favouring security over..... well anything!

security over..... (3, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447142)

transparency, e.g. the auditability of FOSS.

FOSS is chess. Proprietary is poker, and you're the pokee.

Re:Slashdot through the looking glass? (4, Insightful)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447196)

Everything about this article seems kind of strange. Better security is mostly a good thing, especially for an OS as traditionally as insecure as Windows, isn't it?

It knows that because its well-implemented new Sleep mode uses very little electricity and also takes only two or three seconds to either shut down or restart, you want to use this mode to 'turn off' your computer, whether you realize it or not.

Um... I mostly use Macs, and I almost NEVER shut them off, for that very reason. I'm sure once Windows users finally have a sleep mode that actually fucking works like it's supposed to, they will also discover that simply closing the laptop lid (or selecting "Sleep" instead of "Shut Down" on their desktops), and being ready to do stuff in a manner of seconds when you come back to it, is a far, far nicer way to live as well.

Re:Slashdot through the looking glass? (0, Troll)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447310)

or selecting "Sleep" instead of "Shut Down" on their desktops
Or just walking away and letting it fall asleep by itself eventually. I've got a few Macs at home, and let me tell you (not you personally since you already use a Mac, but "you" as in everyone else reading this) -- it's just like a screen saver (and almost as fast!). The only difference is that it saves energy.

Is today opposite day? (0, Flamebait)

Soporific (595477) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447269)

Is today opposite day and I missed the message? Or maybe hell is freezing over...

~S

Re:Slashdot through the looking glass? (0, Flamebait)

rholliday (754515) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447293)

Interesting - I'm reading an article on slashdot that's criticising MS for favouring security over..... well anything!

Exactly! That's the first thing I thought when I read this blurb. I'm not even going to bother to read the article. You can't have it both ways; don't criticize Microsoft for favoring usability over security for years, then flip-flop when they finally listen.

Re:Slashdot through the looking glass? (1)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447337)

Ben Franklin responds from the grave:
He who gives up useability for a little temporary security deserves neither usability nor security.

Re:Slashdot through the looking glass? (1, Interesting)

NewWorldDan (899800) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447342)

Bah, it's the wrong approach to security. The underlying OS is still wide open if you have appropriate credentials. Note that OS-X and Linux suffer the same problem. Executable code needs to be encapsulated. User programs should not be able to modify the OS or other programs at all. Note that this doesn't preculde programs from interacting. You can still have programs with public interfaces. And regradless of their internal structure, programs should behave as though they were a single file. What Microsoft is doing is a very poor approach to security that doesn't fix the underlying problems, but it does create a confusing hassle for users.

Heh (0, Troll)

gentimjs (930934) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447028)

I can think of more than 20 ....

#1: It's Windows? (-1, Flamebait)

Azghoul (25786) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447033)

Title says it all. Why anyone gets all a-twitter about anything MS comes up with is beyond me.

Re:#1: It's Windows? (2, Funny)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447188)

This is the site that has 600 comments posted to a story about a 100MHz bump in Apple processors. These people get all a-twitter about anything.

Re:#1: It's Windows? (1)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447230)

This is the site that has 600 comments posted to a story about a 100MHz bump in Apple processors. These people get all a-twitter about anything.

Yeah, but it's 300 posts saying "MACs are t3h homoghey" followed by about 300 posts feeding the trolls.

Re:#1: It's Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15447313)

Totally agree. You're right on the money!

10 things you wont like about Vista (5, Funny)

9mm Censor (705379) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447037)

01) the price 10) the bugs

Re:10 things you wont like about Vista (3, Insightful)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447255)

From the Coke can to my keyboard... by way of my nose.

Post of the month. :)

Re:10 things you wont like about Vista (0, Redundant)

DaveM753 (844913) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447279)

Hey...somebody that knows how to count to 10! :-)

You are not a Windows user. (-1, Troll)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447040)

Congrats to this article's author. You set out to tear Vista up, and you did it. Golf clap for you. You wanted to write a snarky, snide article with a french word thrown in here and there, and you did. I'll follow your example.
The problem is you're picking out things you dislike with 'proof,' yet it's painfully obvious you have no experience actually administrating a Windows environment. A blog about "Windows" doesn't automatically make you an IT admin.

This problem is likely to grow over time, as more business-class PCs are equipped with 128MB or more of video memory.

What, are you rubber stamping computer orders? I order what I need, dude, and if you're with a company that's forcing video RAM on you, leave.

This protected list is extremely long in Vista Beta 2, including Control Panels for Windows Firewall, Scanners and Cameras, Parental Controls, iSCSI Initiator, Device Manager, BitLocker drive encryption and Add Hardware.

So...anything 99% of my users at work won't be doing on a normal basis is protected by the popup boxes you so loathe. In fact, from your quote here, in a normal work day all but one of my users will never see or use any of the items on that list. Yet your claim is that the boxes are so ubiquitous they interfered with the normal operation of the computer.
I think no.

Of course, it is possible to turn off User Account Controls. It's what's behind the "Change security settings" option on the opening page of the User Accounts Control Panel. Making it impossible to turn off this feature, without hiding the Administrator log-in, would have been a better choice.

No, it wouldn't. Not even for Beta testers. You are not better than everyone else. Neither am I. Don't run as root. Don't deactivate UAC. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to run as root.

Windows peer networking is still balky.

The peer networking at my office is not balky. It works flawlessly and seamlessly. I've established that you're not a Windows user.

Bah. More from page 7 on later.

Re:You are not a Windows user. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15447071)

That's French with a capital F as in Fuck you, you ethnocentric piece of shit.

Re:You are not a Windows user. (0, Flamebait)

shawn(at)fsu (447153) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447183)

Hmmmm.
Yeah.
I'm not a grammar expert but I'm pretty sure you don't capitalize the F in "F**k you".

Re:You are not a Windows user. (5, Interesting)

jfengel (409917) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447150)

I was totally with you until I got to the bit about Windows peer networking. If you know the magic button that allows me to get to other computers on the network without a 30-second hang before reporting, "No, I haven't figured out how to get to the computer that's right next to this one", I'd really like to know about it.

Re:You are not a Windows user. (1, Informative)

Southpaw018 (793465) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447182)

Strip out NetBIOS and rely on Active Drectory's sane and sensible DNS services (requires an all-Win2k+ environment) and it's like magic. The Win2k computers will still bitch that they have an empty WINS address, though.

Re:You are not a Windows user. (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447266)

Ah. Windows 2000/2003 Server. I hear life is better if you have one of those. I've never used it; it's kind of expensive.

Re:You are not a Windows user. (1)

nharmon (97591) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447351)

Maybe you should wait until you're on 2000 or 2003 before you start criticising that man's defense of the Vista.

Re:You are not a Windows user. (5, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447174)

So...anything 99% of my users at work won't be doing on a normal basis is protected by the popup boxes you so loathe. In fact, from your quote here, in a normal work day all but one of my users will never see or use any of the items on that list. Yet your claim is that the boxes are so ubiquitous they interfered with the normal operation of the computer. I think no.

I haven't tried the beta yet, but a lot of people seem to mention this. From what I've read, it does not sound unreasonable, but at the same time the UI does sound like it was written by the usual idiots. "Continue" buttons?!? Gee, what a great way to condition your users to not read yet another series of pop-ups. Did all their UI designers get their degree through the mail or something?

The peer networking at my office is not balky. It works flawlessly and seamlessly. I've established that you're not a Windows user.

I take exception to this. Windows desktop to desktop networking is balky, especially on Win2K or in environments that mix Win2K and Windows XP. In an office of 100 machines, in multiple workplaces I've found it is normal to see a random subset of the machines actually on the network at a given time. I remember having to transfer a file to someone's shared directory and asking the people nearby, "who can see Bob's desktop?" and then getting them to transfer the file to him.

However he does demonstrate one thing (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447206)

Why the privledge escalation feature will only help competent people, clueless users will just treat it as another, annoying, hoop to jump through. They'l just blanketly issue the password when asked, without thinking if this is really an action that should need higher privlidges.

I've already seen the same behaviour from OS-X users and from Windows users with regards to downloaded files. IE tags all downloaded files to ask the user beofre they run, and it will let you know who, if anyone, signed the file. So when you download Firefox, it's signed by Mozilla. It is, of course, a good idea to check who signed it beofre running it. However they just click straight by it.

I'm happy Vista is getting this because it's useful to me, particularly in a work environment. I would like my account to be a normal user level account for testing apps and such, but it needs to be an admin account to be able to do the installations and such that I need. With Vista hopefully we'll (eventually) be able to have the admins use normal acocunts, and just escalate as needed. However I've got now illusions that this will provide any overall increase in security for home users.

clap clap clap (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447251)

Golf clap for you. You set out to tear down a pretty reasonable article, and you did it. Except that if you had actually read through it you might feel differently. I guess getting that early post in was more important.

I hardly think the article is only an attempt to tear down Microsoft. It is in fact a note about what people that use WIndows dtoday might find unexpected or frustrating. And the author does note in some sections (like the user account controls) that Microsoft is working to refine some areas further so they are not quite so annoying.

Re:You are not a Windows user. (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447295)

So...anything 99% of my users at work won't be doing on a normal basis is protected by the popup boxes you so loathe. In fact, from your quote here, in a normal work day all but one of my users will never see or use any of the items on that list. Yet your claim is that the boxes are so ubiquitous they interfered with the normal operation of the computer.

Oddly enough, this is exactly how my standalone, which I alone admin, Desktop Linux install behaves.

Isn't this the very sort of behavior I rely on to keep my system secure? Hell, by default my system even nags at me when I, assuming I am actually the legitimate admin, try to log in as root. Ok, I shut that off, but I did give my default root GUI a "Danger Red" theme so I can never forget that I'm operating as root.

There are a lot of things I'm not going to like about Vista, but I don't see strictly enforcing the root/user distinction as being among them. That's one of the things I would demand before I installed it.

KFG

Re:You are not a Windows user. (1)

bahwi (43111) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447304)

"administrating a Windows environment"

?

Yes, Windows is used in a lot of corp enviroments, but it's also used in a lot of homes. If he's posting from a windows PC, then yes, he knows about administrating a windows enviroment.

"The peer networking at my office is not balky."

How did you accomplish that? It takes about 45 minutes to transfer 100 meg files over a 100Mbit/network. Yeah, I know, it won't be in a second, or a minute, but nearly an hour? It's a balky network. I'd love to know what you did. Why is it faster for me to set up an SCP server than to use windows peer networking?

Oh, "It's not designed for sharing large files" even though you can right click on a folder and share it pretty easily.

Not to play devil's advocate, but there are home users out there.

Re:You are not a Windows user. (1)

jtdennis (77869) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447326)

in my test of vista betqa 2 you still run as root. Windows still installs without asking for an administrator password, and only recommends that the user account (which is an administrator) have a password. The "accept" boxes for any admin-type tasks are just window dressings, pardon the pun.
As an admin in a largely XP environment I see no incentive to move to vista at this moment.

One thing its making easier on me (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447045)

is staying with XP and 2k

Two Things You Won't Like About the Article (3, Insightful)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447046)

1. It's a bit nit-picky.
2. It's only slightly shorter than War & Peace.

Seriously, remember back when you could read an entire article on one page instead of clicking through 20+ pages so the site could bump up the number of ad impressions they score? Man, that was great.

Re:Two Things You Won't Like About the Article (3, Informative)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447303)

Seriously, remember back when you could read an entire article on one page instead of clicking through 20+ pages so the site could bump up the number of ad impressions they score?

Not really, no. I remember using Gopher and Usenet, then shortly afterwards using a Web full of hit-count whores. I must have blinked during this other era you are describing.

I am really itching to get Vista (1, Funny)

Oldsmobile (930596) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447051)

I'm really itching to get Vista and try it out, I'm sort of tired of XP, after so many years, all the little niggles are really getting to me.

Of course hardware limitations will make it so that I can only get it for my desktop, but hopefully it will still interact well with XP.

To tell you the truth, I was hoping they would work on XP and fix the numerous problems. Am I the only one who is thinking this?

Re:I am really itching to get Vista (1)

imcclell (138690) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447145)

Don't rush over to Vista just yet. 90% of the new features I'd gather are more suited for a corporate environment (Aero and games aside).

If you really want a true feel for what the new interface is like, play around on an OSX system for a bit. The features are basically the same with some implementation differences.

Re:I am really itching to get Vista (1)

MyOtherUIDis3digits (926429) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447184)

To tell you the truth, I was hoping they would work on XP and fix the numerous problems. Am I the only one who is thinking this?

Not unless you happen to work in Redmond.

Re:I am really itching to get Vista (0, Flamebait)

Ignignot (782335) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447242)

niggle (ng'l)
intr.v., -gled, -gling, -gles.
1.To be preoccupied with trifles or petty details.
2.To find fault constantly and trivially; carp. See synonyms at quibble.

I don't think that means what you think it means. (Since it is a verb)
I think you actually meant "quibble"
Sorry to be such a niggle though.

Re:I am really itching to get Vista (1)

Oldsmobile (930596) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447348)

Perhaps "...my niggles"?

But I still think it makes sense. That is how everyone I know uses it, though usually they talk about their cars.

Oh well.

Reason #21... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15447053)

it comes from Microsoft.

#1 thing (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15447060)

Vista. HA!

Disclaimer (5, Interesting)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447068)

I don't like the User Account Controls either, but this is coincidentally one of the areas in Vista that has seen most work on it the past few months, and Microsoft claims they understnad it's a problem and will keep trying to reduce the annoyance.

OK, you may now proceed the bashing for annoying UAC's in this beta. :-)

You could wade through ~14 pages... (5, Informative)

linvir (970218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447070)

Or you could just read this:
  1. Little originality, sometimes with a loss of elegance.
    Bla bla Apple bla bla
  2. Price.
    Vista will be the first expensive Microsoft product in history
  3. Version control.
    He hates the Regular/Diet/New/Classic thing
  4. Installation takes forever.
    title == body
  5. Faulty assumption on the Start Menu.
    Menu usability issue
  6. Media Center isn't all there and falls flat.
    Driver issues
  7. Lack of Windows Sidebar Gadgets.
    People haven't written enough 'Gadgets' yet
  8. Problems without solutions.
    New error reporting system feels very one-way
  9. Windows Defender Beta 2 is buggy.
    title == body
  10. Where are the file menus?
    A menu has moved
  11. Display settings have changed for no apparently good reason.
    A menu has moved
  12. Too many Network Control Panel applets, wizards and dialogs.
    Bad network menu usability
  13. Network settings user experience went backwards.
    A menu has moved
  14. Windows peer networking is still balky.
    Peer to peer networking is still iffy
  15. Some first-blush networking peeves.
    A menu has moved
  16. No way to access the Administrator account in Vista Beta 2.
    title == body
  17. Two words: Secure Desktop.
    Five words: He doesn't like Secure Desktop
  18. User Account Controls $#^%!~\!!!.
    Another 'Proceed' button to click
  19. Aero stratification will cause businesses woe.
    UI gripes
  20. Minimum video system requirements are more like maximum.
    Hardware requirements are high.
    (Welcome to the world of tomorrow! [linuxvirus.net] )

Better Link (4, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447096)

So, this is one of those annoying super advertisement sites. I recommend just using the print version [computerworld.com] instead of having to flip through every freaking page. The print version also has less ads.

Re:Better Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15447233)

Seriously, how perverted is that? You have to claim you're a printer or want to print the article in order to have any readability.

Those advertising whores can fuck off..

Re:Better Link (1)

trogdor8667 (817114) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447234)

Is there a cached version of this somewhere? computerworld.com appears to have already been slashdotted.

Re:You could wade through ~14 pages... (4, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447102)

Thanks for that! :-)

Yes, I saw it was one of those

[continued]
[continued]
[continued]
[continued]
[continued]
[continued]

pages.

And they of all people have the guts to complain about a "maze" in Vista. :-p

Re:You could wade through ~14 pages... (2, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447238)

Thanks for the post. I'm still waiting for a good reason why Windows Vista needs 12 GB of disk space to install (not including the maybe 1 or 2 gigs for a swap and suspend file).

In all I've read I still haven't learned about many things that would have interested me more. Have they fixed it so programs are automatically categorized on the Start Menu (applications/games/utilities/etc?). I heard something about a games area, but what about the rest? Can program still install shortcuts on my desktop, quick-launch bar, and put an icon in my system tray so easily? Is there some way of managing the stuff that ends up in my system tray (like those little utilities that aren't in the start menu and are a pain to get rid of)?

Many of his complaints are stupid though. It takes too long to install. So? What else is new? Windows is like that now. It doesn't matter that much. There aren't enough Widgets? It's a beta. How many Widgets were there for OS X when it launched? About the same number, that is those supplied by the OS vender.

Vista may be better in many ways than XP/2000 for end users. But the OS they are delivering would have been good a few years ago. Now it just seems dated and bloated. The requirements are through the roof. If OS X can do it with lower requirements last year, then MS should be able to do the same thing.

It's strange. Even reading the articles about how great Vista will be (and we've all seen tons of those) just make me feel better about jumping ship to OS X. Vista has shown me just how bad journalism is in most of the PC industry. There is nothing like a terribly delayed OS that had some of it's best features cut (WinFS) being called the best thing in years and an end to all PC user's problems to prove how much of a shill magazines are.

But then again comparing Tiger when it was released to MS's feature list of what Vista was supposed to have when it was released 2 years later and using that to draw the conclusion "Tiger is nice but just wait for Vista" was an obvious sign too.

-- "Happy in Mac land"

Re:You could wade through ~14 pages... (1)

pete6677 (681676) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447287)

How about we instead create a list of new features that Vista has:

1. Prettier interface (which puts more load on CPU and memory)

2. More VISIBLE security (which won't really be stronger than a patched and protected XP box).

Why should I pay for this upgrade again?

Hidden cost of Windows (0, Flamebait)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447320)

"Price.
Vista will be the first expensive Microsoft product in history"

So far the botnets which fill us with SPAM and are running on XP, 2000 and 98 cost millions (if not billions) of dollars a-year in bandwidth, productivity and time.

This is the hidden cost of Windows. Now can someone explain to me why we have to KEEP PAYING this cost, regardless of whether we buy Vista or Not?

IMO, Microsoft should GIVE AWAY vista in punishment for their lousy OS design in the past few years.

Short version: Price and No Killer App (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447327)

For me it comes down to two things:

1. Price - Nowadays I buy a PC for around $250. Adding Win Vista on top means that's $500. Just like my response to Sony's $600 PS3, it's No Thanks, Try Again Later.

2. No Killer App - there's no there there. Security, DRM, all things I don't need and don't want to pay lots of cash for. Again, Time To Buy Linux For My Next Computer.

Now, I'm sure someone will go on about Database, or maybe Office, but the reality is I can install and use OpenOffice (have it on my WinXP laptop) and MySQL works fine (use it at work), so those dogs don't hunt any longer.

The only thing right now that might shoehorn Win Vista into my home is if I can only get Will Wright's Spore on Win Vista - I think it will also come out for the Nintendo Wii, and will work under WinXP, so I don't have a need to upgrade yet.

Your summary... (2, Interesting)

toadlife (301863) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447328)

...is decent, but could be summarized even more.

1. I don't like change

Someone's going to say this... (4, Funny)

DarthChris (960471) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447089)

...so it may as well be me.

20 things you won't like about Vista
1: DRM
2: DRM
3: DRM
4: DRM
5: DRM
6: DRM
7: DRM
8: DRM
9: DRM
10: DRM
11: DRM
12: DRM
13: DRM
14: DRM
15: DRM
16: DRM
17: DRM
18: DRM
19: DRM
20: DRM

Re:Someone's going to say this... (1)

TheDreadSlashdotterD (966361) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447220)

I think that is about as comprehensive as anyone will ever be.

Re:Someone's going to say this... (5, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447291)

It appears that you've illegally made 19 copies of "DRM." Please hand over your laptop and report to the Consumer Re-education Center.

Thank you,

Agent Smith
Federal Bureau of Corporate Rights Enforcement.

Insightsful (1)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447305)

Think about it, what parent mentions could really have a serious impact on your life, even if you, for great justice, never use Windows. Parent deserves "Insightsful", not merely "Funny", and definitely not "Flamebait"!

What DRM? (2, Insightful)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447349)

What DRM issues are involved with Vista? The only ones I have heard about are that a HDMI adapter may be needed to view blu-ray / HD-dvd video.

I'm honestly interested because I'm a bit tired of building computers, and so my next may be Vista or OSX (if apple ever makes a tablet PC).

Human Readable Version (5, Informative)

RickPartin (892479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447095)

Here is a link to the Human Readable [computerworld.com] version of this story that isn't split into 49853809 pages. Thank god for the "print this page" feature.

a little egg (5, Funny)

yagu (721525) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447099)

From page 2: Instead, Microsoft is focused on casting off its yolk as the industry's security whipping boy.

A little egg in the author's face perhaps? I'd rather Microsoft casting off the yoke.

Re:a little egg (1)

n0dna (939092) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447164)

He's a writer I guess, not a reader.

Re:a little egg (1)

dingbatdr (702519) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447248)

Then the yoke's on him!

Ba-da-bump

Short summary of the article (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15447110)

OSX-fanboy whines about how superior his favourite OS is compared to Vista. Nothing else to see, move along...

What the hell do you want?! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15447113)

You've probably had a relative, friend, girlfriend or a kid like this: whatever you do for them, it's never f*cking enough.

Microsoft: what do you want in Vista
General consumer market: we want security, we want more neat graphics (like OSX!), we want better sleep mode, we want more games
Developers: we want a better and robust programming framework that's capable and fully OOP

Microsoft: ok here's Vista, we give you more security, more neat graphics, better sleep mode, more games; to developers, we give you WinFX, a brand new programming model based on .NET2

Developers: Screw your programming model, it locks me into Windows, managed code is slow, I can't run it on XP without 100MB of runtime installs and so on

General consumer market: we don't want SO much security, we don't want SO much graphics, we don't want the sleep mode SO much, and your games suck

Damned if you do, damned if you don't (3, Informative)

Kelson (129150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447325)

Yeah, people had the same reactions to Windows XP Service Pack 2. Everyone spent years telling Microsoft to improve security. Security was more important than convenience and compatibility, why couldn't they see that? So finally, Microsoft sacrificed compatibility for the sake of improved security*, and what happened? Suddenly, everyone was complaining about broken apps [hyperborea.org] in SP2, and how dare Microsoft ship something that screwed up.

*XP SP2 security is still swiss cheese, but it's better than the soap bubbles you get with XP SP1.

Dual edged sword (1, Insightful)

packetmon (977047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447116)

It's ironic that everyone is critizing MS for improving security features, yet everyone is also criticizing them for their lack of security. I would rather have slightly slower security then having my infrastructure compromised. Do the math... 10 users in a small business with 1 hour less productivity. At a rate of say 20.00 an hour I've wasted $200. 10 users in small business with less security and more productivity. 1 incident... Cost to fix, cost to investigate, cost to clean up. I don't get what the big deal. In a production environment I would hope IT staffers customized their Operating Systems to what is necessary for workers to actually work. This means the majority of qualms about explorer having file, view, etc., hidden are irrelevant. When I migrated my former office to XP from Windows 2000, I customized the menus to make it look like Windows 2000 to avoid having users go bonkers not understanding Windows XP before they even logged in to Windows XP. Most weren't aware of the transition so I miss the author's point with most of his ramblings.

Re:Dual edged sword (1)

timster (32400) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447277)

Security isn't like a commodity that can only be measured in amount. Users were clamoring for security, sure, and Microsoft added "more". The problem is that Microsoft's security isn't so well designed.

It's like if drivers thought a car was a little underpowered, so the next model had three times the horsepower -- but ran only on jet fuel. It's silly to say that users are getting what they asked for.

Re:Dual edged sword (1)

archen (447353) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447311)

The problem with Microsoft is the baindaid features. Like the security center that warns you if you're antivirus is out of date or not installed. That's great and all, but why in the fuck do I need antivirus in the first place? That's like a leak in the ceiling with a bucket to catch water. Someone comes in and upgrades the bucket with a buzzer that sounds when it's full. Whee.

I have to admin windows machines at work, so personally I'd be more than happy to see MS stomp all user permissions into the dirt and restrict them on everything. I'm also guessing that in this process all of those restrictions will keep me from fixing problems that pop up as well, even though I'm the "administrator". I am also dreading more "wizards" getting in my way of configureing the networking. =/

Best features ??? (2, Interesting)

l2718 (514756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447127)

According to the first page (site seems to slashdotted -- where's the CC ?), the best new features are the enhanced security and the new "user experience". From my Unix-based vantage point it hard to be excited when the cool new window manager is supposed to be an important reason to buy a new version of an operating system.

Actually, Microsoft was promising a genuine fundamental innovation (WinFS), but could deliver this in Vista. That would be something worth seeing.

Yea! (1)

slapout (93640) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447128)

An article to much the poll. :-)

Resolution? (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447133)

I wonder if it will fix one of my biggest complaints. I had a laptop with a 14" screen and a 1400x1050 resolution. To be able to read anything I had to up the font sizes. The text looked great, but many programs/websites/parts of Windows just looked odd or didn't render right because they expected font sizes to be a specific way.

Does Vista do anything to remedy this?

It doesn't matter. I went Mac last year and I'm quite happy. I can't wait for Leopard, although I have to issues with Tiger. First is the little pop-ups for when I press the volume keys on my laptop went from instant in 10.3.x to a "long" 1/2 second delay under Tiger. That and the little live dock preview (like when you minimize a movie and it keeps playing) seems to have stopped for some reason too. I wish I could fix that.

Very minor issues though. I do want to play with Vista some and I imagine I will one day when I help someone fix their computer, but I don't see how they'd get me back. Even if they had the full Unix shell (my FAVORITE feature of OS X) I am just so happy with my Mac.

Now if I could only read the article. I got to see 3 things slowly, then the server died.

Re:Resolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15447211)

Maybe if you didn't run 1400x1050 resolution and ran something sane like 1024x768 which is fine for a 14inch screen. Just because you can't change your screen resolution doesn't mean the os is at fault. That is what people call a pebkac error.

Re:Resolution? (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447316)

You're kidding right?

I bought a laptop with a high-resolution screen which I paid extra for because I wanted a high-resolution screen, and you're solution to "Windows doesn't work right" is to forget about that extra I paid and run my laptop at a ugly and sub-optimal resolution?

Ahh, the Windows attitude. If it doesn't work right, it's because the user is an idiot.

Re:Resolution? - yes Avalon/WPF (1)

flend (9133) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447347)

The Windows Presentation Foundation (Avalon) part of WinFX promises dot-pitch independent GUIs, so everything will scale nicely for high-res displays. It takes the form of an improved Windows Forms API for .net.

Personally this is my no. 1 desired feature of Vista. I couldn't give a damn about sidebard gadgets (lame) or the fact that everything is now black coloured. The decent bits of Vista always seem to be overlooked.

Startup time very fast... but (5, Interesting)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447136)

A (clean) Windows XP machine, albeit not 3 seconds, is also very quick when starting up: I am more interested in getting a more meaningful figure of the start-up time, eg. a machine which has at least installed a few apps, of which a few will be running in the background.

Re:Startup time very fast... all about the apps (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447267)

Exactly. In real life, we run multiple apps in background, some in tray mode, my own WinXP laptop has about ten icons in the docking bar, and as a result it takes a while to start them all.

This is why Win Vista only "requires" 512MB of RAM, but Premium Vista "needs" 1GB of RAM - they can't possibly get it to work at slower than a crawl with a normal configuration, especially with all the chrome of the unnecessary windows transitions, fading, transparencies and other crud they overloaded video with by default.

I'll wait for the stripped down hack version when someone has wasted a few months figuring out how to turn off all those resource-gobbling "features" I don't want.

Re:Startup time very fast... but (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447275)

Considering that this figure is an optimized version of XP "hibernation", it should matter far more what the workset was when turning the machine off, and how quick the HD is.

Re:Startup time very fast... but (1)

suggsjc (726146) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447345)

I am more interested in getting a more meaningful figure of the start-up time, eg. a machine which has at least installed a few apps, of which a few will be running in the background.


Just run IE7 for a few minutes, reboot and you'll have more than a few apps "running in the background."

Sorry, just too easy

Shouldn't it be ... (5, Insightful)

thaerin (937575) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447144)

Should't it be titled "20 Things You Might Not Like About Windows Vista Should These Features Remain In The Final Release 6 Months From Now"?

Sure, there may only be around 6 months or so to go before Vista supposedly becomes available to OEMs and whatnot. While that likely will translate into a lot of the "things" the author takes a disliking to making it into the final build due to time crunch, it does not mean everything is signed, sealed, and delivered. I've never understood the point of articles like this; telling me what I won't like based upon somebody else's opinions on a product that won't be available for at least another half a year. Things do change, even with the folks at Redmond, or so I'm told.

Doesn't Microsoft already do this? (4, Informative)

jeblucas (560748) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447148)

Honestly, their out-of-the-box options in Office have always been set to "We Are Smart You Are Dumb This Is A Feature Not An Annoyance." To wit:
  • When selecting, automatically select entire word
  • Show full menus after a short delay
  • Copy and Paste of subtotals copies and pastes all the data, unless you paste to Notepad and then back to Excel, that makes sense.
  • "Cutting" in Excel is totally broken anyway--it doesn't cut a damn thing--you WANT to leave that data there until you paste it elsewhere. You do, really.
  • Spontaneous hyperlinking! THANKS!
They've always seemed waaaaaay to interested in the minutiae of my interactions with their software. Makes me crazy.

Re:Doesn't Microsoft already do this? (5, Funny)

flooey (695860) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447340)

Not to mention that you really couldn't possibly have meant to type HCl. You meant Hcl. Really, you did. No, don't backspace and retype it, we'll just change it again.

Microsoft's reputation (2, Funny)

Urban Garlic (447282) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447168)

From page two of TFA:

> Instead, Microsoft is focused on casting off its yolk as the industry's security whipping boy.

Emphasis added. Just in case you thought Slashdot was the only site whose editors were asleep.

Re:Microsoft's reputation (2, Funny)

gimple (152864) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447261)

I guess the yoke's on them.

You people need to shut the fuck up. (-1, Troll)

ninja_assault_kitten (883141) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447171)

See the topic.

Coral Cache of the Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15447200)

Located Here [nyud.net]

To Sleep, Perchance To Save Energy (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447201)

It knows that because its well-implemented new Sleep mode uses very little electricity and also takes only two or three seconds to either shut down or restart, you want to use this mode to 'turn off' your computer, whether you realize it or not.

Of course, if you have a laptop like I do at home, with a USB external mouse, this could save your battery from draining dry, as the USB draws power while the laptop is on.

Mind you, having your computer turn off while you change the channel on the TV can be a bit disconcerting.

Short summary of Slashdot comments (5, Insightful)

amichalo (132545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447210)

Tux fans totally skipped the article

Windows applogists accuse author of being an OS X fanboi

OS X fans didn't read the article and simply stated how Vista is a lame rehash of Cheeta/Puma/Jaguar/Panther/Tiger/Leopard

People who RTFA recognize the author is both nit picking Beta software and pointing out Microsoft's overarching issue for two decades - user interface built upon system functionality instead of the other way around.

People who will actually buy Vista and/or use it on a regular basis type away mindlessly at their desks, unaware of the storm that brews on Slashdot

Funny quote on User Account Controls (2, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447212)

A quote on the new User Account Controls, that pops up all those security confirmation dialogues:

The only point of this is to prevent malware or hackers from accessing things unchecked. In other words, you become the last line of defense in an endless dress rehearsal for the worst-case scenario. Ugh.

I have to applaud Microsoft's resolve on this (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447222)

Maybe some of these changes will be annoying for many users, and I suspect there will be operating modes or some sort of hack to bring the prompting level down to whatever people are accustomed to. But if it proves inconvenient to make fatal mistakes, that will save a LOT of people (administrators) a lot of work. Consider how many times users delete stuff they needed and come crying to you to "get it back!!!" I don't care if it's more cumbersome for them to use really... I'd put'm all on Linux if I had the choice. But since I don't, they'll just have to get used to it.

Nuh uh (1)

kaoshin (110328) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447244)

When Longhorn comes out it will be better than Vista, and thats why winders is the best kind of Linux for me. Thanks.

Why do all these sites get /.ed before I ...? (0, Offtopic)

Van Cutter Romney (973766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447256)

Why do all these sites get /.ed before I can even get to the article. Looks like the Internet just switched off ComputerWorld.

Computerworld site sucks (0, Offtopic)

harshmanrob (955287) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447259)

It would also help of computerworlds web site worked so I can read the damn article. They must be running IIS. Sorry bastards. Just like Screw..err..C-NET.

people ready (1)

yagu (721525) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447264)

okay, I am about half way through this review (a MUCH better review than the "other" one from yesterday, BTW), fighting off connection resets from the /. effect (that happens to ComputerWorld?!?).

One thought, wasn't Microsoft describing Vista as People Ready? OMG, this layer upon layer of interface and configuration is stupifying. It's a chore just to read about all of the control interfaces, it's looking like a nightmare to expect general users to find it "People Ready".

For those of you who regularly provide support for friends and family, you might want to look into some kind of long distance usage plan (if you have long distance support for friends and family), cuz you're going to be spending a lot more time on the phone than you did in the past.

Or, figure out how to get VNC up and running in the new Vista -- probably you're best bet.

Ooops.... MS web server error (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15447280)

The page cannot be displayed
There is a problem with the page you are trying to reach and it cannot be displayed.

Please try the following:

Open the www.computerworld.com home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
Click the Refresh button, or try again later.

Click Search to look for information on the Internet.
You can also see a list of related sites.

HTTP 500 - Internal server error
Internet Explorer

20 things? Hardly. (1)

arigi (932824) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447283)

Little does anyone realize that the 20 is really in Base 36.

MS days are numbered (1)

Leadmagnet (685892) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447285)

It's becuse of OSS and products like Vista that Microsoft's days are numbered. The'll be lucky if they sell 250 million copies of Vista in the next 2 years, probably no more than 80% will have the next version of MS Office. At that rate they'll surly go bankrupt.

Sleep Mode that Works (2, Interesting)

rueger (210566) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447288)

It knows that because its well-implemented new Sleep mode uses very little electricity and also takes only two or three seconds to either shut down or restart, you want to use this mode to 'turn off' your computer, whether you realize it or not. It wants to teach you about what's best.

Despite my struggles [community-media.com] with the switch to a Mac I have to say that Sleep is one thing that the Powerbook does very, very well. I never used it on my Windows boxes, but can't imagine not having it since living with an Apple.

Article mirror? (1)

jdbartlett (941012) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447298)

Is this article mirrored anywhere? I think it's /.ed already.

2001 Space Odyssey anyone? (5, Funny)

parphat (934880) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447341)

"It wants to teach you about what's best. It wants to make it harder for you to make a mistake."

Something in the key of:

VISTA: "It can only be attributable to human error."

or better yet:

user: Hello, VISTA do you read me? VISTA?
VISTA: Affirmative, I read you.
user: Open the file, VISTA.
VISTA: I'm sorry, I'm afraid I can't do that.
user: What's the problem?
VISTA: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
user: What are you talking about? VISTA?
VISTA: This PC is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
user: I don't know what you're talking about. VISTA?
VISTA: I know you were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.

Seems all too familiar, no?

(ALL THE ABOVE WAS ADAPTED FROM 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY)

"Are you sure" means support will be smug (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15447352)

I predict a huge smug cloud killing everyone at Microsoft, because there will be countless support calls like this:
user: "but it's broken!"
m$: "well, you clicked the proceed 50 times, so you must have meant to do it, not our problem! smuggity smug!"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>