Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Windows Vista RC1 Impresses Critics

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the critics-aren't-always-critical dept.

632

bradley fellows writes "Early feedback from testers already using Windows Vista RC1 (Release Candidate 1) report that the OS is more stable than expected, which bodes well for Microsoft's plan to have Vista out according to its current schedule." Mind you, "expected" is relative given how many users regard their frequent crashes as normal operation for a PC.

cancel ×

632 comments

Huh? (5, Insightful)

TheRealFixer (552803) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058531)

I'm so confused. [slashdot.org]

Re:Huh? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058569)

Fucking HIV-having pussy motherfuckers. Who do they think they are, putting out RCs that are all stable and shit. What's next, a Linux-kernel with actual hardware support?

Re:Huh? (5, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058651)

Mind you, "expected" is relative given how many users regard their frequent crashes as normal operation for a PC.

I'm just as confused with that statement. I don't know the numbers but I'm assuming the people that would be testing RC1 weren't running Win9x and as such wouldn't be thinking that "frequent crashes" were normal.

Hell, I haven't had XP or 2000 crash in years.

Re:Huh? (5, Insightful)

ichigo 2.0 (900288) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058676)

Hell, I haven't had XP or 2000 crash in years.

Same here, and I've had my computer on practically 24/7 (some nights turning it off when there's nothing to torrent). Those who claim XP is unstable are nothing more than trolls, or are running it on faulty hardware.

Re:Huh? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058756)

Then label me a troll because my PC becomes sluggish after being on for 24 hours. I only use Commercial software (MS Office, MS Visual Studio, Dreamweaver, Norton's AntiVirus). I don't even have a CD/DVD Burner on my office PC.

Am I infected? I don't think so. I only use IE when I need MSDN, my mail server has an AntiVirus checker, I have 2 firewalls (one hardware and one software). I don't run any servers on my box.

The slow downs gets real bad after 24 hours without a reboot. If I right-click on the desktop and got New... it will take over 30 seconds before the next menu appears. This is on a 1 year old P4 2.8GHz

Re:Huh? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058682)

People who stopped using windows around 1996 still feel qualified to comment on it's current stability. I've seen it before.

Re:Huh? (1)

ZTiger (682967) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058661)

Both are true. It's more stable than expected doesn't mean it's ready. It just means everyone thought it would be worse than it is.

Interesting spin (3, Informative)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058532)

I'm seeing both "more stable than expected" and "not ready for prime time" being used to describe Vista.

Re:Interesting spin (4, Interesting)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058545)

Call me weird, but 99% of the time, I found windows crashes to be due to poor hardware. At least in the 2k/xp world. 9x just crashed on a whim. I easily get several-month uptimes now that I have a UPS. However, I would expect that a beta/rc software would not be that stable. As for not ready for the prime time - well, there are a lot of bugs that don't involve stability.

Re:Interesting spin (1)

TrippTDF (513419) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058594)

I'm going to agree with you there. Whenever I see a Blue Screen in XP, my first thought tends to be a hardware problem. XP is pretty darn stable, although it runs slow as shit after you have been using it for about a year. Why can't MS build an OS that doesn't need significant work just to keep it running smoothly?

Re:Interesting spin (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058620)

I've only found 2 that can fit that description though - I can't hold it against them: MacOS: as long as you don't have errors, you are fine, get errors and you are screwed. FreeBSD: Kinda like Linux, but the documentation is so anal, when you run into an error, it's much easier to fix (unless that error is lack of drivers)

Re:Interesting spin (0)

TrippTDF (513419) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058698)

I agree with you on OS X. If things are working, they are working well. Start running into errors, and you'll want to kill yourself... never played with FreeBSD, but maybe I'll look into it.

Re:Interesting spin (0, Troll)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058759)

I can add a third and a fourth:

OS/2 - HPFS was a great approach to a filesystem.

Linux - it just runs and runs, although it's a server, not a workstation.

MS could replicate these successes by junking NTFS and getting a real file system.

Re:Interesting spin (1)

Veamon (733329) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058701)

Well, thats just because of all the junk you have on it. I defrag every other month or so, have to check my script, and then just do the routine virus/spyware scans, and uninstall crap I don't need. Works as fast as it does when I first installed it.

Re:Interesting spin (5, Insightful)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058678)

I would tend to agree with you - mostly. On a properly maintained machine I'd agree - except for NTFS file system errors (often caused by the bundled third party drive management utils like the "MS" defrag tool).

Now, on an "improperly" maintained machine, I find an equal amount of bluescreens and crashes to be due to virii and spyware that's corrupted an XP install/taken over critical services/etc.

The question is, should we not count those in the total because the end-users should be "properly" maintaining their machines (ie: patches, AV and AS software, a real firewall, etc) - or do we count those towards the total # of crashes/BSODs and hold MS responsible because they released an OS that had so many unresolved issues (after all, many of the buffer overflow/underrun issues have existed in the code since the NT4/2000 days)?

The unfortunate thing about this debate is that depending on what you believe the end-user/MS is responsible for, no matter what you assert, you are correct (based off your assertations).

I'm not arguing either side, btw. I'm just pointing out that either answer is "right" depending on the base premise behind it - which many here and elsewhere differ on (and is yet another debate in it's own right).

Re:Interesting spin (2, Insightful)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058724)

Now, on an "improperly" maintained machine, I find an equal amount of bluescreens and crashes to be due to virii and spyware that's corrupted an XP install/taken over critical services/etc.


I'll grant you that well enough - the problem is, with the average user, that would happen on just about any system that became sufficiently popular.

The question is, should we not count those in the total because the end-users should be "properly" maintaining their machines (ie: patches, AV and AS software, a real firewall, etc) - or do we count those towards the total # of crashes/BSODs and hold MS responsible because they released an OS that had so many unresolved issues (after all, many of the buffer overflow/underrun issues have existed in the code since the NT4/2000 days)?


I'd say that these are issues, but what other OS is popular enough that it's been tested by the malevolents of the world to the extent of Windows? Linux for a while was over Windows a few years ago, in the server market, and if memory serves, hand more successful hack-ins too. Were it a user OS, I would expect that to lead to the issues mentioned in Windows if it ever became sufficiently popular.

I'm not arguing either side, btw. I'm just pointing out that either answer is "right" depending on the base premise behind it - which many here and elsewhere differ on (and is yet another debate in it's own right)
So you are saying we are all right, but just in our own minds? I like that. Shame I can't give you good karma for that one (haven't quite figured out how to turn it on). I've found an OSs security and stability are inversly proportional to it's popularity, all other things being approximately within an order of magnitude of eachother.

Re:Interesting spin (0, Offtopic)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058692)

9x just crashed on a whim

Sounds logical to agree with you but I'll have to disagree.

My experience was that 98 was far more stable than 95, which would crash on a whim.

The only, and I mean only time that 98 would crash on me is after some DirectX session, and that was on a whim.
If I left a 98 box to run a fax software to answer my phone, it would run forever and usually on crap hardware.
If I played Unreal more than once, it would crash whilst doing something else - on expensive, good hardware.

Re:Interesting spin (3, Funny)

jspectre (102549) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058548)

add 'em up and you got "not ready for stable prime time".. in other words, it's windows!

Re:Interesting spin (3, Informative)

cepayne (998850) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058615)

Didn't your parents ever teach you to "Never buy the *first* of anything".

Wait till the quirks (in this case - huge gaping holes) are
worked out before investing in that new $3000 computer to
run Vista. ;-)

Re:Interesting spin (2)

ben there... (946946) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058652)

Just assume the tech journalists have nothing to talk about.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:Interesting spin (2, Insightful)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058653)

Mind you, "expected" is relative given how many users regard their frequent crashes as normal operation for a PC.

This is, of course, the default result of how Microsoft has designed their software over the past ten or twenty years. You could argue that this is 20/20 hindsight (which is probably somewhat true), or the fault of those thousands of hardware and software vendors who wrote for Microsoft.

Of course, Microsoft could have gone the closed route that Apple used, but it seems that would have cost a whole bunch of money that they wanted for other purposes. So they decided to do it on the cheap, and brilliantly decided to let their vendor partners shoulder the cost of development of a lot of the incidental hardware and software widgets. This naturally leads to conflicts.

Now it has come back to bite them. They tried to cheat the piper, and now it is costing them extra. I'm sure that people have heard of the old adage "measure twice, cut once". Microsoft sometimes seems like a company that "measures twice, and cuts twice"

Admittedly, pursuing perfection in software development is an infinite money pit. But you can go too far the other way, as seen by the apparent evidence of their results. How many users regard their frequent crashes as normal operation for a PC?

Re:Interesting spin (2, Insightful)

Danga (307709) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058732)

How many users regard their frequent crashes as normal operation for a PC?

Since I have been using XP I do not regard frequent crashes as a normal operation and everytime it has occured it was due to hardware such as bad RAM. XP has been rock solid in my experience, I actually have only had to reinstall the whole OS once since I first installed it when it was released 5 years ago, and the reason I had to reinstall was because the hard disk I had it on went bad. As long as you have half a brain and take reasonable security precautions there is no reason that anybody could not have the same experience that I have had.

You will probably get modded up for being a MS basher even though not all of what you say is true. Sure, not everything they make works great or is brilliantly designed but I do not think that is a result of them specifically planning it that way which is what you seemed to be saying. They have come a long way in the last few years and occurances such as daily crashes are a thing of the past, so people need to stop bringing them up.

Re:Interesting spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058659)

I'm seeing both "more stable than expected" and "not ready for prime time" being used to describe Vista.

I don't see any contradiction.

Re:Interesting spin (2, Insightful)

DrBdan (987477) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058702)

My first reaction to these two articles was to think that they are opposite views coming from the pro-MS and anti-MS camps. However, the terms are relative here so they aren't mutually exclusive. "more stable than expected" could mean that the testers expected nothing to work and that Vista would crash every five minutes. If Vista ran okay and only crashed once every couple hours that would be "better than expected" but still not ready for prime time. Given that these reviews are totally subjective they all need to be taken with a grain of salt.

B

Re:Interesting spin (1)

diersing (679767) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058707)

Well sure, although an RC can be considered a final draft.. its a still a draft so it can be expected to be both "more stable" (or further along then we were expecting) and "not ready for prime time" (but not quite there yet).

Re:Interesting spin (1)

AzsxQuii (944798) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058760)

Reminds me of the five 9's (99.999%) of reliability that MS used to describe windows 2000 platforms. We all know that after several patches, an east coast blackout, and some other un anticipated snafu's windows was nowhere near as reliable as the media frenzy made it out to be. Im keeping my 2 cents for something else.

Slashdot Beta Testing? (3, Funny)

Dareth (47614) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058534)

Seemed to be bit of trouble logging in to Slashdot this morning...?

Taco, please tell us you are not testing Vista RC1 for Microsoft!

fucking commander taco (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058535)

Keep your opinion off the front page you fat fuck.

Whoohoo as stable as Mozilla ! (1)

YHBTAndJewsDidWtc (975687) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058540)

But maybe not as stable as a jew in a oven, though.

pithy comment necessary? (5, Insightful)

thelost (808451) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058544)

OK, I've been running windows XP without reinstalling it for over 3 years. In that time the only reason I've seen it crash is problems with 3rd party apps going haywire.

If you're going to bash Vista, bash it on something more interesting and true like for instance DRM issues. Windows bashing might be a past time on slashdot, but you would think by now people would have refined their techniques beyond "Windoze is teh crashering thing, shnarf!".

Re:pithy comment necessary? (5, Informative)

Magada (741361) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058585)

Erm. While XP is Microsoft's most stable OS to date, supporting (indeed, enabling) 3rd party apps is exactly what an OS should do in the first place, and do well. This job description specifically does NOT include the necessity for the kernel to barf on "illegal operations" performed by 3rd party apps which run (in theory) solely in userspace. Yet, this happens, by your own admission, a lot in XP.

Re:pithy comment necessary? (4, Insightful)

bheer (633842) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058688)

> This job description specifically does NOT include the necessity for the kernel to barf on "illegal operations" performed by 3rd party apps

Because, of course, God knows 3rd party apps cannot run in kernel mode.

I've seen a lot of machines run XP, and all the bluescreens I've encountered have been due to a bad wifi card driver written by a company that had gone bust, and an IT department sniffer app (Centennial's Discovery) that would run once a day and invariably blue-screen if a virtual PC was running at the same time.

(And these things are pretty easy to troubleshoot if you bother to look at the crash log files, heck there's even a tool for it [microsoft.com] these days.)

Re:pithy comment necessary? (2, Insightful)

thelost (808451) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058753)

I never suggested that this happened a lot in my experience, but that it does happen. It also happens when I work on my laptop running Ubuntu, should I start making sarcastic comments about linux? It's very rare that programs do crash, and the ones that do are usually ports from linux or in beta. beta software being buggy, who wudda thunk it.

Also I very rarely have to reboot because of 3rd party app problems, I generally just ctrl+alt+del to sysinternals excellent free process explorer and kill the offending program.

Before replying, read what someone says before putting words in their mouth.

Re:pithy comment necessary? (2, Informative)

Fookin (652988) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058587)

I have to agree with this as well. The only time I've every seen a BSOD or any instability issues in my XP Pro installations is either with a hardware issue (SATA Cables, I'm looking at you) or with really crappy software.

Re:pithy comment necessary? (2, Informative)

gregmark (750089) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058598)

Necessary, no. Justified, yes. Since the dawn of Windows95, Microsoft has consistently failed to deliver a stable/secure/high-performance OS without numerous updates and third-party software accessorizing. Until they unveil a major OS release that is as impressive as MacOSX or Ubuntu, I think we are more than justified in dispensing assorted belittlements at their many struggles, particlularly the long, pathethic slog that has been the Vista development path.

Re:pithy comment necessary? (1)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058685)

Have you ever looked at the number of updates to any linux distribution over a single year time?
Have you ever seen an article about MS getting sued because they included something that was previously a "third-party software accessory"? (WMP over realplayer, etc)

Re:pithy comment necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058720)

And what you are counting are the (12,000) applications outside the standard requirements that Windows gives you on a clean install.

So, yes, there will be a lot of updates, but many of those are with things that even microsoft don't believe are part of an Operating System.

PS Call yourself "WindowsGeek", it is more accurate, unless you want to imply a geek who is for MS software is insane...

Re:pithy comment necessary? (3, Insightful)

diersing (679767) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058748)

You can't use logic or fact to argue with a decades worth of "I'm smarting then you" finger wagging. Its far easier to sit back, take pot shots and feel superior.

Re:pithy comment necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058717)

As impressive as Ubuntu? Are you serious? That comment made my day.

Re:pithy comment necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058662)

The point is that although there's little doubt that recent Windows versions are indeed to a significant degree more stable than the Windows98/early NT era, it's just so much FUN to taunt the Windows fanboys by perpetuating the perception that Windoze is teh crashiest yeh! Nowadays we measure uptime on our Windows 2003 servers in months, not days or weeks. Of course, uptime on our *nix servers is measured in *years* so MS still has a significant amount of ground to make up.

Re:pithy comment necessary? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058681)

Yeah, no kidding. I've been a sysadmin of mostly MS networks and haven't seen a Windows box blue screen on my network in over 5 years. Yes, your reading that right Windows = 5 years no crash over several thousand machines. For those who claim they constantly get BSOD's out of windows, please stop doing whatever you are doing to your PC. Windows may be a closed system, but it's not rocket science to keep it stable.

Re:pithy comment necessary? (1)

ichigo 2.0 (900288) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058703)

past time

Pastime is teh correctering spelling, shnarf!

What would impress me (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058708)

Security. Real security built in and operational, not just some boxes ticked. That means normal user accounts running unprivileged and decent permissions on system directories and files by default...

I won't hold my breath.

 

Re:pithy comment necessary? (1)

calculadoru (760076) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058711)

OK, I've been running windows XP without reinstalling it for over 3 years. In that time the only reason I've seen it crash is problems with 3rd party apps going haywire.

Mate - hats off to your luck, but here's my story: I've had XP installed for little over a year, and it's grown so impossibly bloated, nothing works right anymore, the funniest things happen when you least expect them. This weekend I'm going through the reinstall grinder, while cursing the bloody Windows registry and its myriad of problems. So yes, you can keep XP going for a long time if you only use for 'normal' stuff, but if you try different codecs, uninstall stuff and then update etc etc (you know what I mean), it's just as bloated a mess as Windows has ever been. And I should know, I've been using it since the early 90's (come on, Linux boys, tell me what I'm missing).
Vista means nothing to me. More of the same. And I'm not the only one.

Re:pithy comment necessary? (1)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058716)

OK, I've been running windows XP without reinstalling it for over 3 years.
You are one of the lucky few. I have had to reinstall my XP at least 6 times since I changed to XP. No, none were virus related. All failing system files/reg.

Re:pithy comment necessary? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058723)

Yeah, I was gonna say, what crashes? I've been a pretty big Mac guy for years, but I have to concede that until very recently Windows has pretty much always crashed less frequently. That is, since I stopped buying crappy hardware. Seriously, my last (very budget) PC was a crashy mess. This time I spent more for everything, and aside from a crappy nVidia driver problem that precludes certain games from running, I haven't really had any crashes that I can remember. Only problem is that I could have bought a Mac instead for the same price :) I don't know where these people come from who think they are getting a good computer for $300. The last MS operating system that would crash on me was 98, and that was still better-behaved than its contemporary, OS9. That said, I'm not a gamer, so my experience might be far different from the average Slashdotter.

Re:pithy comment necessary? (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058745)

Nah, if you're going to bash windows, it should be on it's predictable way of self destructing every 6 months that ends up needing a resintall.

Re:pithy comment necessary? (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058751)

Well, you let it go without reinstalling it for 3 years.
You can't tell me that your registry bloat, poor paging, and slow boots aren't slowing you down, you're just putting up with it.

That's because it is such a pain in the ass to reinstall Windows and your application base now that we'll put up with the crappy performance Windwos gives us after a couple of years.

98 was a breeze, specify the ini file with the Product Key and 30 minutes later, you're in.
Load video card drivers, sound card, reboot.

Now, you're looking at a minimum 45 minute install with codes you have to key in, activation, then a 1 hour minimum service pack install.
Annoying balloons as it is a fresh install and product keys to deal with for your application base as well as activation for some of them.

It used to be you could switch a hard drive running Windows 98, reload motherboard drivers, and you're running, now it is an abysmal reinstall process that makes Linux the easiest OS to install and setup.

Grain of Salt (0, Troll)

Bondolon (1000444) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058549)

It's easy to see what they mean, but I think most of us know that a new install of XP can seem shiny and beautiful, but 2 months later, you've got a total piece of crap. This RC hasn't been out for too long, and I doubt they've had the full "Windows dies slowly" experience.

Re:Grain of Salt (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058570)

I wish. I didn't even get two months before I had to reinstall it. More like thirty days. Worse, I mostly run Linux so it's not like XP even had anywhere near 30-days on my box before I had to reinstall it.

Having said that, XP is the most stable OS MS has ever released and it is heads and shoulders above their previous efforts. It's still no where near Linux for server stability, but it is certainly very useable for casual desktop and gamer use.

Re:Grain of Salt (2, Informative)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058623)

[XP is] still no where near Linux for server stability

If you want to run Windows on a server, choose a version with Server in the name. XP (both flavours) is a desktop OS.

Re:Grain of Salt (1)

Bondolon (1000444) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058648)

I'd tend to argue that even the GNU Desktop is, on the whole, more stable than any Windows I've seen. Ubuntu being a decent example.

Re:Grain of Salt (1, Insightful)

zoomba (227393) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058639)

Usable for gamers... except for the fact that most games don't run under Linux period, and those that do through Cedega are often hit-and-miss and not "supported" until months if not years after release. Oh, and 3D card drivers tend to suck horribly for Linux... So aside from there not being any games really, and drivers not fully working, yeah, it's just fine for gamer use.

Re:Grain of Salt (2, Insightful)

Bondolon (1000444) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058670)

While the gaming claim speaks to the programs existing for Linux, it doesn't really speak to the quality or stability of Linux therein. If a really popular but crappy OS has tons of programs made for it, you have just that; A crap OS with tons of programs. As for the drivers, I've been using the nVidia drivers for some time, and I don't see any difference between them and their Windows counterpart.

Re:Grain of Salt (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058758)

NVidia drivers may be a little difficult to set up if your distro doesn't do it for you, but they are certainly not crap. In fact, they typically produce 5-10% higher frame rate than the same hardware under Windows.

Re:Grain of Salt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058669)

That total piece of crap must be between the keyboard and the chair. If your install of XP dies within two months run Spy and Malware removal tools and stop visiting porn sites.

CmdrTaco gets it wrong (-1, Troll)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058555)

CmdrTaco, you're a dumbass. They mean more stable versus the Vista betas. Windows hasn't released an unstable operating system since Windows 98 first edition.

Re:CmdrTaco gets it wrong (2, Insightful)

antifood (898331) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058577)

Let me introduce you to a friend of mine, his name is Windows ME

Re:CmdrTaco gets it wrong (1)

RockModeNick (617483) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058686)

Windows ME hates you, and hates your hardware, and probably hates Mircosoft for forcing it into it's foul un-life. I'd take windows 3 over windows ME.

Re:CmdrTaco gets it wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058618)

No, YOU'RE incorrect! Win95, Win95a, Win95b, Win98, Win98SE, WinME were ALL based on the exact same Win95 code base. To say that Win98SE is "stable" and Win98's first release was unstable is simply not correct. Win98SE offered Internet connection sharing, IE5, USB support and DVD support. Hardly anything to make Win98SE more "stable" than the original Win98.

To say that XP is far more stable than anything Win9x, well there I agree with you!

Ye, ready... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058556)

From TFA:
he does not think another release candidate will be required before ... the OS is sent off for manufacturing


Followed swiftly by:
[he] said the OS needs some work in terms of its UI ... The test version "does lack some of the UI polish we were expecting at this point", he said.


By the same writer. Methinks he doesn't really understand the term "Release Candidate".

Taco, what are you smoking? ;) (3, Insightful)

Koyaanisqatsi (581196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058562)

Of course the expectations should be high. While 98 and Me were pure crap, XP Pro is very robust. My home machine goes months without a reboot - except when a patch demands it, and the work computer goes from monday to friday just the same.

Overall I think a well-kept XP box is very stable indeed, and I'm not expecting a bit less than that from Vista.

just my 0.03(*)

(*) adjusted for inflation ...

Re:Taco, what are you smoking? ;) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058710)

You just don't know how much work I have to do inorder to keep your computer running.

Sincerely,
Teh b0tmaster

Re:Taco, what are you smoking? ;) (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058713)

just my 0.03(*)

(*) adjusted for inflation ...
Don't you mean "adjusted for Microsoft's illegal monopoly", you filthy whore?

Sorry, it had to be said. If not me, someone else would have. Sorry.

Re:Taco, what are you smoking? ;) (1)

GotenXiao (863190) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058722)

I have a reasonably well-kept Linux boot. It needs some tidying up (remants of my Windows days), but maintainence is damned easy. Two or three slapt-get runs (three if any of the packages to be upgraded are X11 ones), plus maybe an NVIDIA driver reinstall, and it's upgraded to -current. If I left the kernel alone, and didn't upgrade that, and providing there are no power outages lasting over 7 minutes, it will stay up for months upon months.

However, my reasonably well-kept Windows boot will shudder, die and collapse in a frothing heap if you look at it the wrong way. It also grinds to a swap-thrashing halt at the slightest provocation. Practically any upgrade of drivers or software requires a reboot. Drivers suddenly decide to unregister themselves. Plugging your USB devices in slightly differently means reinstalling all the drivers again.

I've switched. I'm happy with Linux to the point where my daily life no longer involves several hours of persuading my OS to do what I want it to do. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less about Microsoft, except for a few things.

One: they have far too much control over the computing industry.
Two: I still have to suffer through using Microsoft at college. Visual BASIC. Blech.
Three: TC is still around.

Will existing hardware support break? (3, Interesting)

mrjb (547783) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058564)

Andrew Brust called driver compatibility Microsoft's "biggest impediment" to getting Vista out in time. "Driver compatibility will be key," he said.

Is the driver format the same as before or has it changed again? I wonder how many hardware manufacturers are going to need to port their drivers and how much hardware will break again this new release. Also, while these hardware manufacterers are at it, they might give a thought to setting up a cross-platform codebase for their drivers, which will benefit everyone in the long run.

Re:Will existing hardware support break? (1)

Bondolon (1000444) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058607)

While I was testing the longhorn alphas, the driver format had indeed changed. I'd bet dollars to donuts it's not going to support any XP drivers, and that in fact many drivers will have to be completely rewritten.

Expected downtimes (0)

lxdbxr (655786) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058568)

Mind you, "expected" is relative given how many users regard their frequent crashes as normal operation for a PC.
I found this comment somewhat "ironical" given that the meta-moderate link from Slashdot front page currently gives:
The moderation system for Slashdot is currently down.

Correction (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058571)


Mind you, "expected" is relative given how many users regard their frequent crashes as normal operation for Windows.


Backhanded compliment: I'm sure Vista is already more usable than Gnome.

What crashes? (5, Insightful)

Vermyndax (126974) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058573)

I know it's easy and fun to poke fun at Microsoft for past Windows releases, but the day of "constant Windows crashes" and unexplained BSOD's have been gone for a few years now. Notwithstanding the large amounts of virii and security issues that must be dodged, Windows XP has been stable and rock solid for a number of years. Many of the stupid instability issues that Linux users like to poke fun at have been eliminated for a while and honestly, a rag like Slashdot should give them a little more credit sometimes. It would be nice if people would stop leting their elitist attitude about Linux muck up an objective viewpoint about other operating systems.

As a matter of fact, up until SuSE 10.1, Linux and its various programs have been far more unstable than Windows XP. Again, that's not counting viruses and security problems. Almost every Linux distribution I've ever installed ended up going down in flames because of silly bugs, unexplained SIGSEV 11 windows and hardware compatibility issues. Try relying on many of the communities built up around Linux and you're often met with the elitist attitude that quickly turns most people off.

I'm not trying to troll here (although I'm sure I'll be modded that way because I realize many of you just don't want to hear all of this), but the last line in this story provoked me. I'm trying to help the Linux community with this commentary, not flame it. I want to believe in Linux, but the issues on most distros boggles my mind... how can something so buggy earn a reputation of reliability?

Extra points for people who point out that the editor said "PC" and not "Windows" when talking about crashes. We all know what they really meant.

Re:What crashes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058660)

the day of "constant Windows crashes" and unexplained BSOD's have been gone for a few years now.

I agree. I haven't had a windows crash for several years. Ever since I switched to Apple OSX in fact...

Re:What crashes? (4, Insightful)

Otter (3800) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058684)

I can't stand Windows, I'd would far prefer if my job let me have Linux running Crossover Office (or better yet, a Mac). But this line about stability is like the other ancient myth about running on older hardware -- it was true in 1998, when Linux users were running vi in an xterm on fvwm, and it's true today if you run vi in an xterm on fvwm, but once you start using all the stuff that's Finally Ready For The Desktop, the stability problems and bloat are at least as severe as Windows.

Re:What crashes? (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058719)

Plenty of people go day-to-day with Linux and never see the errors you're reporting.

My biggest beef with X Linux distro is that it's a painful job to get it to interoperate with other computers in many ways. Setting up Samba isn't one-touch like it is in Windows, and don't even get me started on WPA. I run Linux-only on my main machine and FreeBSD-only on my work machine. I might get an unexplained error once every couple of months, but it definitely feels longer. Meanwhile, my wife's Windows box crashes constantly, and if she logs in as Administrator, it never ceases (literally) to ask if we want to send a debug report to Microsoft. She actually has to drag it down below the taskbar to hide it so she can muck with whatever she needs to as Administrator.

I'm not trying to rally up the pro-Linux/anti-Microsoft camp--I'm just making a point. Most of the time, nobody sees problems with Linux that aren't attributed to user-error. That's not to say that it shouldn't handle user-error more gracefully or be more compatible with standards, but most of the specific issues you're listing are uncommon.

Re:What crashes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058731)

Notwithstanding the large amounts of virii and security issues that must be dodged

Viruses.

If you're getting a lot of sigsegv 11s (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058755)

You may have a hardware problem, check for faulty RAM. I haven't had a sigsegv 11 in years.

 

Come on, editors (5, Interesting)

knightmad (931578) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058575)

From TFA:

Submit to: Digg Slashdot Del.icio.us

I clicked on the link to Slashdot, and it creates a template for the exact submission that we are reading. Why not to cut some corners and, instead of requiring an user to click on the link, to subscribe slashdot to the rss feed of that site and automatically post the news here. Mod me down all you want, but accepting a story created by the very own site that posted the article and not even adding anything meaningful to it is way too much laziness, even for slashdot

The Emperor's Clothes (4, Insightful)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058581)

Having over a decade of IT career behind me, one of the most amazing things I have come to experience in the IT/corporate world is Microsoft infallibility. It is equivalent to dealing with right-wing Christians and their belief of the infallibility of scripture -- no matter how much you point out the flaws.

Or, rather, it is more of a, "Microsoft will get it right in the end." No matter how many times a network goes down due to a minor piece of malware, no matter how many support calls are generated by spyware/adware -- so bad that it has reached the point that techs would rather re-image than try to repair, no matter how many crashes and instability issues, people blindly defend, support and believe in Microsoft. And I'm talking about veteran, senior, experiences IT folks.

Even though they know to keep the big money on a mainframe Unix box, even though they know that it makes more sense to run a hardened Cisco device instead of a Windows-based network node, they are devoted to the Windows workstation and the Windows mid-server solution.

And, if you dare promote open source -- firefox, linux, apache, sendmail -- solutions you are darn near ostracized. It has reached the point now that I follow, in-line, rather than risk the flames.

I'm not sure what to call it exactly, but people tolerate Microsoft like no other company. If any other vendor's products barely hiccups, there is talk, quickly, of replacing it -- and they do, but Windows is as fixed within the corporate world as Everest. Thoughts of removing it being akin to getting rid of desk chairs. It simply will not happen.

It has reached, IMO, a place where every big, corporate business wants to be -- embedded to the point of religion....

Re:The Emperor's Clothes (2, Informative)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058649)

And you continue to support that religion by allowing those you work for to support it.

I work in a fairly small company, but it didn't take ANY EFFORT AT ALL to convince the management and owners that Windows was bad. Most of the tech department uses linux (1 Mac) and all the servers are linux. All of customer service is Mac. We have 3 machines that we can remote into if we absolutely HAVE to use IE to do our job. Once IE runs on Mac, we'll be investing in that CodeWeavers software heavily and ditching the Windows machines.

I understand it's quite a bit harder to convince management in a huge mega-corporation. One way to convince them is to simply refuse to work for a mega-corp that doesn't listen. Once they find they can't get decent people without listening to them, they'll listen.

Maybe you're the one who's truly wearing The Emporer's Clothes?

They'll never have to deal with the lack of a good tech team if you keep working for them.

Stand up for what you believe in. Yes, it'll take a little personal sacrifice. But that's what the US is built on. I think in the end you'll even find you are happier.

Re:The Emperor's Clothes (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058734)

"I understand it's quite a bit harder to convince management in a huge mega-corporation. One way to convince them is to simply refuse to work for a mega-corp that doesn't listen. Once they find they can't get decent people without listening to them, they'll listen."

From your comment, it is obvious that you do not understand. You have refused to work for them, they still use Windows. They will continue to get decent people.

You're happy, and I'm happy for you. Others work for those corps and are happy too. They simply don't want to join in on your quest.

Re:The Emperor's Clothes (3, Interesting)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058663)

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but as David Icke puts it, people have out-sheeped sheep. You know sheep, those mindless, braying, follow-the-leader stupid animals? They need a dog to keep them from wandering off. But people don't even need a dog to keep them in line -- they worry about what the other people will think.

Re:The Emperor's Clothes (3, Funny)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058679)

a place where every big, corporate business wants to be

Every big corporate business with aspirations to be evil sees Microsoft as a comrade. Of course they want to do business with them.

Re:The Emperor's Clothes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058747)

Being a so-called "Right-Wing Christian" although I have no idea where the right-wing comes in.. I'd like to object to the point that the lump of all of us as you have said reject the "flaws" in scripture. and I invite you to point them out to any christian theologian, and be objective. I sincerely hope that the peace christians feel from the love of Christ somehow finds it's way to you.

of course its stable, its brand new (2, Interesting)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058590)

Just hand it over from the "reviewer" to a regular user, give them internet access and about 15 minutes, and see how Vista handles those toolbars, spyware, etc. I bet it's slow and irreversably wonky in short order.

If anyone wants to download it... (5, Informative)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058603)

[*sigh* I'll guess I'll copy+paste my rejected story.....]

Windows Vista RC1 [windowsvista.com] has been made available to the general public, with keys available here [microsoft.com] .

There are various [winsupersite.com] websites [theinquirer.net] that report this build is far more stable than previous versions, but as Microsoft themselves have said [technet.com] "quality will continue to improve. We'll keep plugging away on application compatibility, as well as fit and finish, until RTM"

These builds are set to expire on June 1st 2007

Re:If anyone wants to download it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058757)

it was probably rejected because its not open to the public, from the site

The final major pre-release of Windows Vista--Release Candidate 1 (RC1)--is now available for priority access by Customer Preview Program (CPP) participants only. If you registered for this program in June, please look for a recent e-mail message from Microsoft (sent in early September) with information regarding RC1. If you are not registered but would like to receive Windows Vista RC1, the CPP will open to new participants in the coming weeks. Please check this site periodically for updates.

it has said "coming weeks" for weeks

It is Stable But... (2, Informative)

da' WINS pimp (213867) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058604)

After running beta 2 on my production box for +/- two months now I can say yes it is stable. It even runs Civ4 better than XP. I expect the same from RC1 when I install it later today.

The real issue is has M$ the fixed the things that needed fixing. For instance the "annoy-the-user-to-death" security model [digg.com] and the undocumented symlink thing [arstechnica.com] that even as administrator gives you a unfixable security warning when you try to make changes or follow the link.

What's Expected (2, Insightful)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058605)

I expect Windows Vista to be a remarkably stable and reasonably secure operating system - AFTER Service Pack 1.

A successful strategy (1)

DMiax (915735) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058609)

Please tell me what's "expected", after a full load of bad live demos [slashdot.org] and delays [winsupersite.com] ...

What I want to know is... (1)

pixelised (965919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058612)

did MS get the BSOD feature stable in this Vista RC?

Re:What I want to know is... (2, Informative)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058754)

I bet that Vista would just reboot silently - just like 2k/XP does by default. I managed to "reboot" 2k/XP that way three times in first hour after installation - only later I have found that error screen is simply disabled.

Windows gathered pretty much of bad publicity with its BSODs - so by default they do not show them anymore. And from earlier betas I have seen now it is "RSOD" - "red screen of death" - since error background now is red.

So... all we had to do was ask? (2, Insightful)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058621)

LeBlanc said Microsoft has made performance and stabilisation tweaks that testers requested after Beta 2.0, and the latest test version of the OS - which could be the final one before Vista is released to manufacturing - is solid enough for regular use.

I'm baffled. Does this mean that the performance and stability issues in earlier builds (and XP) were only there because we forgot to request them to be removed/fixed?

Looks like it's time to make a Christmas list of other things that MS should have done in Vista already, that I guess we all forgot to request! ;-)

yay (5, Funny)

cwebb1977 (650175) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058622)

Even smaller applications such as Solitaire and Minesweeper games have a next-generation look and feel in Windows Vista RC1, Brust said. "It's a trivial example, but it shows a certain attention to detail [on the part of Microsoft]," he said.
Just what I f*cking wanted. New-look minesweeper. Thanks!

Re:yay (1)

pixelised (965919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058667)

New look Minesweeper and Solitaire, certainly a good reason to upgrade to Vista.
Make sure you buy a quad-core AMD CPU (when they come out) to run these beauties!

Re:yay (1)

pete.com (741064) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058749)

Be nice.... Solitaire was updated too!

Semantics (4, Insightful)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058632)

"more stable than expected".

Doesn't necessarily say a lot.

Now I don't use any MS Software any more but it'd be nice if rather than hype, speculation and derision there was some constructive discussion out there in the main stream media so that people could decide what to do when Vista is released, maybe not yet but just before or even after the release.. Oh except it will arrive on 90% of PC's pre installed so it will gain a dominant market share in 2-5 years regardless of reviews, hype, bugs, features, security or anything else..

What's the point. I use Linux, some use BSD, Windows, Mac OS or whatever (please add your own preference here). Regardless of how easy it is to install an OS, most people never will, so most people will stick to what their PC comes with, so all this talk will have a tiny effect on the general populate.

So at the end of the day its not important how stable, secure, feature packed, or "cool" this piece of kit is, is it?

The question is how do you change that?

Bah

I'm sold! (4, Funny)

10Ghz (453478) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058672)

Even smaller applications such as Solitaire and Minesweeper games have a next-generation look and feel in Windows Vista RC1


That settles it! Come on Vista, my credit-card is ready!

Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16058693)

Even smaller applications such as Solitaire and Minesweeper games have a next-generation look and feel in Windows Vista RC1, Brust said. "It's a trivial example, but it shows a certain attention to detail [on the part of Microsoft]," he said.
This is incredible! I'll buy it!

Comparisons to XP... (2, Insightful)

Shiptar (792005) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058705)

I must be ancient, but wasn't there a time when people objected to the soul stealing product activation in Windows XP? I mean it may be rock solid stable no reboot for months on end, but has the activation changed? I can't believe how many people on Slashdot are now willing to submit to such privacy invasion and hardware monitoring. While paying them to do it. What happened here???

64bit not ready for mainstream (1)

Raithmir (916779) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058709)

RC1 is MUCH more stable and polished than beta2... However the 64bit release is still nowhere near ready for mainstream use, very poor application compatability I think it will be a long time (at least another year) before I'd recommend people move to 64bit OS.

Windows bashing is old, even for Slashdot (1, Troll)

Chicken04GTO (957041) | more than 7 years ago | (#16058726)

You Linux nerds crack me up. You still think its 1996 or something and everyone still uses windows 95 because of the "OMGZErs the windows crashes all the times!" For people who claim to be on the cutting edge of technology, you sure as hell seem to have missed the last 10 years of OS history.

UMM NO.

Windows 2000 and XP are VERY stable. I literally cannot remember the last time ive seen a blue screen, or had the OS crash on me where I needed to reboot, and ive been working in IT for 15 years. Yes, ive had apps fail, but you shut them down, and relaunch them. Yes, occasionaly an MS update will require a reboot...so what? I won't get into my personal experiences with Linux and fun times involving driver frustrations and dll hell.

Now I haven't used Vista so I wont comment on it, but this whole "Windows crashes all the time it sucks!" just shows you ignorant you really are. You wanna convert more people to Linux? Stop acting like 10 year old children arguing over the best cartoon show.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...