×

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!

HardOCP Spends 30 Days With Vista

ScuttleMonkey posted about 7 years ago | from the second-verse-same-as-the-first dept.

Windows 662

boyko.at.netqos writes "Hardocp.com has published "30 days with Vista" — with the same author from "30 days with Linux" doing the evaluation. And he doesn't like it. From the article: 'Based on my personal experiences with Vista over a 30 day period, I found it to be a dangerously unstable operating system, which has caused me to lose data [...] Any consideration of the fine details comes in second to that one inescapable conclusion. This is an unstable operating system.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

662 comments

Does Vista do anything right? (5, Interesting)

mjmalone (677326) | about 7 years ago | (#18608565)

Is there anything that Vista does right? It's not just that it's more resource intensive, and less stable than XP - it's also less usable. Check out this report [pfeifferreport.com], vista is less intuitive, has higher menu latency, and has more "friction" than XP/OS X. This is not just about the OS being "pretty." For a product that is used every day by millions of people this will substantially impact productivity.

Re:Does Vista do anything right? (4, Interesting)

Ucklak (755284) | about 7 years ago | (#18608633)

One of my biggest gripes is that the popups are too wordy and popups that require an answer aren't intuitively selectable.
Going to green text on a white background for a "Yes, I want to" or "No, I don't" was a bad UI choice.

Re:Does Vista do anything right? (3, Interesting)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about 7 years ago | (#18608661)

haven't used Vista and won't till my office switches. But...

Is there no ability to set the color scheme used? Perhaps there's a better choice? Granted the one you're using sounds bad as a default selection.


Re:Does Vista do anything right? (4, Informative)

richdun (672214) | about 7 years ago | (#18608723)

You can change it. Much like I did for 6 years of XP, I'm about to switch my Vista install over to "Windows Classic" but I kinda like the eye candy (20" LCD with a Win2K looking desktop just doesn't justify the $700 I paid a couple years back for the monitor).

The biggest thing I've liked about Vista is a graphical installer (which, admittedly, you should only have to use once), good support for hardware driver updates (not the drivers themselves, necessarily, just going to find updates), etc. Of course, I've been using OSX as my primary machine for almost three years, so I got used to those things while using XP only to play WoW with a much better graphics card than my PB G4.

Re:Does Vista do anything right? (4, Insightful)

ncc74656 (45571) | about 7 years ago | (#18609171)

I'm about to switch my Vista install over to "Windows Classic" but I kinda like the eye candy (20" LCD with a Win2K looking desktop just doesn't justify the $700 I paid a couple years back for the monitor).

The first thing I do with a fresh WinXP install is shut off that gawdawful Luna (?) desktop and revert to something that looks more like Win2K. Less space used by UI widgets means more space for program data, and it doesn't look so cartoonish.

Re:Does Vista do anything right? (1)

Nasarius (593729) | about 7 years ago | (#18609131)

Absolutely. I use Vista in a VM for testing, and I can't stand the *giant* window that comes up when you try to copy one file over another. They apparently decided to cram every single detail you could possibly want to know in a single prompt, by default. It looks even worse with the Windows Classic theme. Is there any way to change this and get back to sane prompts?

Re:Does Vista do anything right? (1, Informative)

benzapp (464105) | about 7 years ago | (#18608673)

What do you mean by resource intensive? Does it require moderately high end hardware? Yes. Windows 95 was considered resource intensive for a 386 with 4 megs of ram when it came out in 1995. Who cares?

The menu latency is total bullshit though. Whatever else they have done in Vista, the interface is much more responsive and smooth. The author of your cited article must have had some lousy video drivers. The Aero interface is very fast on well supported hardware.

Re:Does Vista do anything right? (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 years ago | (#18608825)

Does it require moderately high end hardware? Yes. Windows 95 was considered resource intensive for a 386 with 4 megs of ram when it came out in 1995. Who cares?

The reason this is a nonsensical argument is that windows vista does not provide any features substantially in advance of windows xp. Windows 95 does DRAMATICALLY more than Windows 3.1.

In fact, Microsoft claimed that Windows Vista would be the fastest windows yet. But in spite of its limited improvements in functionality - which are almost all supposedly speed-related - it is dramatically slower.

If you install Windows XP on a system that formerly had Windows 2000, the only setback in terms of performance is the stupid fisher-price GUI (which can be turned off) and the fact that it consumes more memory. Programs in fact often DO run faster on XP than on 2k. This is not true of Vista, which also substantially breaks backwards compatibility in the bargain. Everything is slower on Vista.

Re:Does Vista do anything right? (5, Insightful)

jojoba_oil (1071932) | about 7 years ago | (#18609079)

The Aero interface is very fast on well supported hardware.
Isn't that true of just about anything?

Re:Does Vista do anything right? (3, Informative)

coop247 (974899) | about 7 years ago | (#18609117)

What do you mean by resource intensive?
He means it sucks down RAM like its going out of style. I just got a new PC (Core 2 Duo, 2GB Ram, Good video card, Striped RAID 0) and with absolutely nothing running Vista Business sucked up 35-40% of my RAM. Thats sitting still, doing nothing, with nothing running.

must have had some lousy video drivers
All drivers for Vista are lousy. They have serious memory leak issues, and when they start to have problems Vista disables them. I gave it a few weeks (and many driver downloads) and finally said "screw it" and installed XP.

Re:Does Vista do anything right? (1, Interesting)

bogie (31020) | about 7 years ago | (#18609189)

"What do you mean by resource intensive?"

How about needing >1GB to basically do nothing but sit there? How about it being on average 10-30% slower than XP on the same hardware? Some of that will improve over time, some of that won't.

We all accept that new OS=you need to upgrade your system. It's not that Vista is so slow on fast hardware, it is btw, its that it is so slow while offering so little above XP. Sadly there just isn't any payoff for even having hardware that is fast enough to make Vista perform as well as XP. Here's to hoping SP1 is one hell of a service pack...

Re:Does Vista do anything right? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18608793)

Is there anything that Vista does right?
No.

Re:Does Vista do anything right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18608949)

Tag this article "negativeOne" we need to mod down stupid articles like this. Also, for the love of God Mac Only users stop commenting when you have nothing to contribute.

Re:Does Vista do anything right? (5, Insightful)

Torvaun (1040898) | about 7 years ago | (#18609125)

Searches. Windows Vista beats the pants off my Windows XP with Google Desktop. IPv6 is fully integrated. They killed off a bunch of backwards compatibility, which has hosed some older programs. The interface is nice, but not necessary. Stack protection.

Don't forget that we're comparing the recently released Vista to XP, which has been out for years. Of course XP is going to be winning popularity contests right now. Same thing would have happened when XP was released if it wasn't following up ME. I've worked with people who want to keep their Windows 98 machines, for crying out loud. But very few people move backward from a mature OS. There may still be people who like Windows 98, but there aren't people who use Windows XP, and say "Gee, I wish I was using 98 instead." So shall it be with Vista when it matures.

Some random guy doesn't like Vista (-1, Flamebait)

ClosedSource (238333) | about 7 years ago | (#18608573)

So what?

Re:Some random guy doesn't like Vista (2, Informative)

Kohath (38547) | about 7 years ago | (#18608715)

So he's telling everyone about his experiences so we can judge whether we want to try Vista or not based partly on that information.

Re:Some random guy doesn't like Vista (1)

jojoba_oil (1071932) | about 7 years ago | (#18609175)

we can judge whether we want to try Vista or not based partly on that information.
...and partly on every other random guy who doesn't like Vista. FFS, I don't think I know a single person who both owns Vista and likes it.

Re:Some random guy doesn't like Vista (2, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | about 7 years ago | (#18608731)

What I've been trying to figure out is why anyone would use a Windows operating system in the first year of release to begin with? Yes, sometimes you have no choice but to use Windows. Especially if you're a gamer. But that doesn't mean you need to use the newest release. There have been fourteen or fifteen major Microsoft Windows releases and we haven't learned by now that it's unwise to step into the newest version within the first year - or even two years sometimes?

It takes time for software to catch up and for the operating system itself to have some of the crapification sucked out of it. I can't think of a single release since 3.11 that wasn't plagued with significant problems at release. So if you feel like running the latest bloated Microsoft stuff somehow makes you 31337, then go for it and enjoy your misguided self-perceptions. Otherwise, give it a couple years and perhaps your existing software and games will work on it, new games and software will be specifically developed for it and the general stability and security will be much improved over where it is today.

And for fuck's sake, if you move to a brand new OS that was just released and you lose your precious data on it - who's really the idiot there?

Re:Some random guy doesn't like Vista (2, Insightful)

svendsen (1029716) | about 7 years ago | (#18608795)

Any software or hardware in its 1st release will have issues. Can you name me something that in its 1st release was perfect? As for the data I agree if you are going to try a 1st rev of something back up your data. THis logic applies to any OS. I've had friends go from OSX 10.2 to 10.3 and hose their system and lose their data. Ask them where the backups are and you get the blank stare.... Nothing perfect...plan for the worst

Re:Some random guy doesn't like Vista (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 7 years ago | (#18608753)

The "so what" is that this is a quantified test. The methodology and happenings are described in detail. This is not a case of "some random guy doesn't like Vista". this is a case of "some guy who has been known to do this kind of test in the past has found that vista is unreliable, slow, and ineffective on mainstream hardware which is known good." Your misinterpretation of the situation suggests that you are, in fact, simply flamebaiting since that level of misdirection can only be deliberate.

Oh, come ON! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18608609)

Nobody buys Vista because they want a stable operating system. What about the rest of it? The Rolodex windows have to more than make up for any little instability!

Remember: SAVE or GTFO.

The editor undermines the entire piece (2)

g051051 (71145) | about 7 years ago | (#18608615)

Nice editor's note at the very end that says "Well, it's just this one guy's opinion, obviously Vista isn't unfit for any user like he thinks after EXTENDED REAL-LIFE TESTING. I'm not trying to appease our Masters in Redmond, really."

How about . . . (5, Funny)

pembo13 (770295) | about 7 years ago | (#18608619)

only people who have actually used Vista comment. These articles about operating systems are already boring enough without the same boring comments. At the very least I would like a few +5 funny comments.

Re:How about . . . (1)

D4rk Fx (862399) | about 7 years ago | (#18608817)

At the very least I would like a few +5 funny comments.
This one on the Vista homepage explains why WGA has so many false positives:

It's a fact: Counterfeit software can expose you to spyware and viruses.

Yeah whatever (1, Insightful)

benzapp (464105) | about 7 years ago | (#18608625)

I've been running the 64-bit version of Vista since it was released and it hasn't crashed on me once. This guy couldn't figure out which driver/piece of hardware was causing this instability in a MONTH?

Btw, chances are it was a sound card driver - this is a moderately common problem, but it sure isn't the end of the world.

This isn't 1994 anymore. The arguments against MS for making unstable operating systems ended when NT was released. Since Windows 2000, MS has made stable operating systems that really are usable by the average joe without difficulty.

Self contradictory (1)

ivan256 (17499) | about 7 years ago | (#18608695)

this is a moderately common problem [...] The arguments against MS for making unstable operating systems ended when NT was released. Since Windows 2000, MS has made stable operating systems that really are usable by the average joe without difficulty.


Which is it? Vista commonly crashing because of unstable drivers or the OS being stable and usable? It can't be both.

(Yes, I run Vista, and no it has never crashed on me... I have the minimum featureset enabled though.)

Re:Self contradictory (1)

benzapp (464105) | about 7 years ago | (#18609071)

The two are not mutually exclusive. All operating systems crash with poorly written drivers. This has nothing to do with whether or not the OS is stable.

Compared to previous versions of Windows however, the OS really was unstable, irrespective of the driver issue. Software really could take down the OS and it commonly did.

Re:Self contradictory (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | about 7 years ago | (#18609107)

The driver is part of the hardware, so I count BSODs due to driver issues in the same bucket as "faulty hardware." (Making exceptions for drivers that ship with the OS, of course.) Since drivers are going to be required with every modern OS, you really can't count some seedy driver from Taiwan crashing against Microsoft-- especially when Microsoft makes every effort to get companies to thoroughly test and digitally sign drivers.

Re:Self contradictory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18609223)

Oh come on... If the unstable driver ships with Windows, it's a Windows instability. I'd even go so far as to say that if the driver is signed by Microsoft we can call it a Windows instability. He wasn't talking about random sound drivers off the net having reported problems. These are drivers off the Vista CD.

Re:Self contradictory (1)

saboola (655522) | about 7 years ago | (#18609173)

Which is it? Vista commonly crashing because of unstable drivers or the OS being stable and usable? It can't be both.

Would this not be variable depending on the driver maturity? I can imagine that Vista is probably a lot more stable if you are completely sticking with intel integrated hardware, where as if you try running a S3 video card from a few years back, it will go belly up before even hitting the login screen.

Re:Yeah whatever (5, Funny)

alcmaeon (684971) | about 7 years ago | (#18608737)

"Btw, chances are it was a sound card driver - this is a moderately common problem, but it sure isn't the end of the world."

I agree, no one needs sound on a computer. That's why we have iPods.

Re:Yeah whatever (5, Insightful)

moo083 (716213) | about 7 years ago | (#18608773)

I have noticed that Windows fans' excuse for crashing on other people's systems is something along the lines of "Jeez, they must be stupid if they couldn't figure out what was causing their problem". I don't understand how that response is helpful or accurate. If you need to be that smart to use the OS, something is wrong. You said it is probably the sound card driver. Sure, not the end of the world, but how would Joe Shmoe know that? I sure didn't. And here is is, 5 or 6 years after XP is out, and I tried to plug a second monitor into my brand new Dimension E520 at work and the OS crashed when I told it I wanted the second monitor extending my first. Not even a BSOD. Just restarted with no warning. Is that what XP is supposed to do or do I just not know how to use it? I think you need to rethink your response and figure out that something about what you said is incorrect. Or am I just stupid too?

Re:Yeah whatever (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18608863)

You should see what the linux fans say when people can't get things to work. Don't act like Windows fans are any worse then the linux crowd.

Re:Yeah whatever (1, Interesting)

moo083 (716213) | about 7 years ago | (#18609251)

I wasn't comparing Windows to anything else. In my opinion, Linux isn't really ready for mass adoption, so, don't worry, I agree. Linux may have a way better base and a better ideology, but its not easy to use. Maybe one day it will be, but not now. Personally, I use Mac OS X because I feel it takes the best of both worlds. A *NIX base for stability and openness, and an interface that is easy to use (really).

Re:Yeah whatever (4, Informative)

Blakey Rat (99501) | about 7 years ago | (#18609067)

The default in XP is to reboot and log the error in the Event Viewer when you get a BSOD instead of actually showing you the BSOD. Microsoft realized that since maybe 1/10,000 people actually can act on the BSOD data that shows, there's really no reason to show it to everybody else.

There's a checkbox to turn that feature off, if you want to see BSODs, in the System control panel I believe. Or just check your Event Viewer when you have a mysterious reboot.

Re:Yeah whatever (1)

lpcustom (579886) | about 7 years ago | (#18609183)

There's a great feature that was built into XP....instead of a BSOD it gives you an instant restart instead. You can turn it off, but then you'll have to look at that BSOD before you manually reboot. How's that for intuitive!

Re:Yeah whatever (4, Insightful)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | about 7 years ago | (#18609201)

If you need to be that smart to use the OS, something is wrong.

More to the point, if you need to be that smart to use the OS, wouldn't you rather use an OS that puts those smarts to use through powerful tools like shell scripting, built-in command-line accessible compilers, and more? I thought the whole point of using Windows was that anyone can use it. Tell somebody's grandma that she should debug her drivers, you know?

Re:Yeah whatever (2, Insightful)

Com2Kid (142006) | about 7 years ago | (#18609287)

I have noticed that Windows fans' excuse for crashing on other people's systems is something along the lines of "Jeez, they must be stupid if they couldn't figure out what was causing their problem".


Apparently Microsoft not only tried to copy the Unix security model and make an advanced Unix like shell, they also copied the Linux user mentality as well!

Re:Yeah whatever (3, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | about 7 years ago | (#18608789)

You know what, in your support for MS Vista you have inadvertently supported my thoughts on Linux. Yes, it's stable too and several distributions can be installed by general users. No complete neophyte will be able to fully install any OS, that is why computers come with the OS pre-installed.

There are a few driver issues with all OS software!

Now, since they are more or less equal, why use the one that cost you big money? Why use the OS that wants to report what you do and prevent you from playing your content?

Yes, I'm saying that if Dell and others shipped computers with some version of Linux pre-installed, it would be a very short time before everyone (nearly) was asking themselves why they should spend big dollars on MS software... assuming we get around/over the MS Tax. That is a problem that probably needs some investigation, perhaps legislative action.

Re:Yeah whatever (1)

svendsen (1029716) | about 7 years ago | (#18608963)

"Now, since they are more or less equal, why use the one that cost you big money?"

Big Money we are talking about a couple hundred bucks for an OS you will have for many years. What's your cable/food/rent/drinking/hobby/car/etc bill every month? Assuming you buy vista ultimate at $400 (which most people can easily find deals) and you use it for 5 years, it costs you 6.67 a month.

Considering all the software that runs on MS and figuring in things like tax software, accounting, games, hardware that doesn't have linux drivers, etc. it would be more expensive to go to Linux for me then if I bought Vista.

Re:Yeah whatever (3, Interesting)

rucs_hack (784150) | about 7 years ago | (#18608809)

It's habit for most people to complain about windows.

I usually find that people who bitch about it use it exclusively. They mostly don't even understand just how complex a job it is that operating systems have to do.

Me? I use Linux most of the time, and have XP for games and other trivial stuff (if games are trivial). Linux is far ahead in the server arena, an pure number cruncher stakes (which is what I use it for), but still behind in the home user experience. Unfashionable as that statement is, its true. Yes there are all the pieces, but how many versions of Linux are there? Is the Linux Standard Base adopted across the board yet? Nope? Well stop whining, Linux isn't ready for the the mainstream desktop. It needs to standardise.

I don't plan to buy Vista, simply because it does nothing I need.
That hasn't stopped me saying some people I know should quit bitching and buy it. After all, since they use Microsoft stuff anyway, they might as well get the next incarnation.

Re:Yeah whatever (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18609267)

it's habit of all the people to complain about everything, it's like an ice-breaker for social involvement. If people at the office or geeks don't complain about windows, they will complain about the traffic, of not, the politics, if not, a sports team. If not... well there will be anything else to blame.

It's human nature! If we have nothing to complain about, and we live in a perfect world, it would be just boring. In the ideal future, when everyone uses Linux... people will complain because of something is wrong with it.

I worked on a Vista computer, and I found it as much as XP, a bit slower. If you think about an office person, using an office suite, they look all alike, if you put solitaire, hearts, etc, in MacOS, Linux and even SCO... they will look all the same. So if I can keep downloading "free" software for my windows XP and easily install it (no compilation required)... I'm happy.

Re:Yeah whatever (2, Funny)

CF4L (1072112) | about 7 years ago | (#18608865)

I work as a usability consultant. Your post is the epitome of someone who is a computer apologist. You may feel overcoming difficulty with something that is not intended to be difficult, but the vast majority of Average Joe's are not apologists, they are survivors.

Re:Yeah whatever (5, Insightful)

lawpoop (604919) | about 7 years ago | (#18608973)

"I've been running the 64-bit version of Vista since it was released and it hasn't crashed on me once."

"I'm not having problems; therefore, nobody else could be having any, either."

" This guy couldn't figure out which driver/piece of hardware was causing this instability in a MONTH?"

He was using it as a common user with OEM hardware. You're telling me that Joe Six-pack can troubleshoot a driver problem in any timeframe? Remember, MS is marketing this as a retail, for-the-masses OS. The review chose to review the machine as a typical end-user.

"Btw, chances are it was a sound card driver - this is a moderately common problem, but it sure isn't the end of the world."

So now you admit sound card drivers are a common problem? You're right, it's not the end of the world, but the reviewer did claim it was the end for a lot of his data -- which goes against the whole reason to use a computer in the first place -- to store your data.

"This isn't 1994 anymore. The arguments against MS for making unstable operating systems ended when NT was released. Since Windows 2000, MS has made stable operating systems that really are usable by the average joe without difficulty."

Except for the fact of this relatively common sound card driver bug causing crashes. You have openly admitted as much yourself. Sounds like 1994 all over again.

Re:Yeah whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18608999)

I've been running the 64-bit version of Vista since it was released and it hasn't crashed on me once.

Seconded.

I purchased Vista Ultimate Full from CompUSA. Yes, for the insane price. Yes, I know. Really. Anyway, I installed it on my 'home / gaming / internet doodling' machine, which is a P4 3.2 (prescott) on an Abit IC7, with a gig of ram, and an nvidia 7900 uh... GS? The AGP one. My memory for tech specs isn't what it used to be.

I threw in an extra gig of ram, and it's been running, night and day, since the day Vista was released to retail. Late January?

No crashes, after the first day or two. There was some cursing during installation, and I ended up getting a new sound card. Yeah, the new sound stack...

But anyway. Since then, no crashes. I've had the occasional 'your video card driver stopped responding, but it recovered' message, especially when running the DreamScene preview, and alt+tabbing out of World of Warcraft. But it recovered. No restart, no nothing.

No data loss. No crashes requiring a reboot. None of that.

* Yes, I probably sound like a Microsoft "fanboy". I'm not. I love my ipod, and firefox. Maybe I'm a 'shiny new things' fanboy, if you insist on labeling me. And I'd have logged in, but I haven't actually logged in for over a year. Too many flamewar spats. =p

Vista isn't ready for the desktop (1)

mangu (126918) | about 7 years ago | (#18609105)

chances are it was a sound card driver - this is a moderately common problem, but it sure isn't the end of the world


This is exactly the same argument used by people who claim Linux isn't "ready for the desktop": sound card configuration should "just work" without any intervention from the user!


BTW, just wondering: how easy is it to set up a printer in Vista?

i've had BSOD with vista 64bit (3, Interesting)

vena (318873) | about 7 years ago | (#18609247)

it was ATI's latest driver (release, not beta). i've had three confirmed reports of BSOD from this release. and it's not just ATI, Nvidia's drivers have been seriously lacking. what the hell is going on at ATI/Nvidia? the OS was in PUBLIC beta forever, and now it's two months in release, and the drivers are still screwed.

Sorry, couldn't RTFA (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18608631)

jesus CHRIST that is one annoying site! Flashes to the right, flashes to the left, animations everywhere. How in the hell can any one concentrate with all those God Damned advertisers, NONE of whom I actually looked at, as I was trying hard but unsucessfully to read the fucking article.

I got one paragraph into it before I left the site in disgust. If this is what the internet is coming to, I don't fucking like it.

Can anyone link to a plagairized copy without all the fucking assholishly intrusive advertising? Thanks in advance!

Re:Sorry, couldn't RTFA (2, Funny)

OrangeTide (124937) | about 7 years ago | (#18608757)

Maybe all that flash on his site is crashing his vista box?

I like the plug-ins to browsers that replace flash with a button you click to enable flash for just that one part. it really scrubs out all those rotten ads.

Re:Sorry, couldn't RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18608853)

Try joining this century and using an adblocker. I'll give you a pointer, blocking http://hera.hardocp.com/ [hardocp.com] will get 95% of them.

Re:Sorry, couldn't RTFA (0, Redundant)

pottymouth (61296) | about 7 years ago | (#18608915)

Ok, you win! Most obnoxious post award including foul language AND blasphemy in a way that's sure to offend virtually anyone with a modicum of class. What a mouth you've got (or keyboard).

Yeah, go ahead and call me bad names, you know you will.....

Re:Sorry, couldn't RTFA (4, Informative)

Anthony Boyd (242971) | about 7 years ago | (#18609033)

Can anyone link to a plagairized copy without all the fucking assholishly intrusive advertising?

Yes. First, get this [mozilla.com] and this [mozilla.org]. Then try this URL [hardocp.com] to read it ad-free.

Re:Sorry, couldn't RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18609283)

wft, you don't have flashblock and adblock installed on your HTTP user agent? Why wait, do it now!

It doesn't matter (5, Insightful)

xzvf (924443) | about 7 years ago | (#18608667)

Even if Vista is the gold standard of operating systems, I use Linux and FOSS because once it's on my computer I own it. The data is mine, what I do with it (on my personal system) is mine. I don't have to ask permission from Apple or Microsoft to boot. It's my computer, my software, my content.

Uh humm... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18608931)

> It's my computer, my software, my content.

Linux security is so poor, it's more like everybody's computer, software and content.

vista works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18608693)

I use unix and I use windows.

I have used vista for about 45 days. I use it to log into unix machines and routers, and I use it to run Java client applications, and I use it to run Excel to track multi-million dollar capex, opex, and headcount budgets and spending.

I've been very pleased with Vista. It has never crashed on me.

It works well.

Instability? (5, Insightful)

KermodeBear (738243) | about 7 years ago | (#18608699)

I have had Vista running on a machine for about a month and I haven't run into a single issue yet. I hear horror stories (mostly on Slashdot), and I can't claim that they're false, but it does make me wonder what other people are doing that I am not (or what I am doing that OTHERS are not). Maybe the user is unstable, or perhaps there are driver issues.

Re:Instability? (2, Interesting)

ivan256 (17499) | about 7 years ago | (#18608765)

The only issue I've run into is the compatibility. There are simply too few applications and devices supported. I haven't had stability issues, but I'd still recommend people wait a year before taking the Vista plunge unless they are buying an OEM machine and new peripherals, and you don't run anything but mainstream apps.

Re:Instability? (1)

svendsen (1029716) | about 7 years ago | (#18608831)

Yup that's the reason I took Vista of my fiances machine. She liked the new look to it a lot and the widgets but it wouldn't run her Adobe Creative Suite and scanner. Back to XP....

Re:Instability? (1)

cliffski (65094) | about 7 years ago | (#18608913)

Same here, my PC has some sleep/hibernate problems, but I havent really investigated them because startup / shutdown is so fast. The disk thrashed till i turned off indexing, but apart from that vista feels responsive, very user-friendly, and hasn't crashed or hung once.
And even using the 'dodgy' nvidia 8800 drivers hasnt caused me any issues. Games run fast and fluid, and I haven't encountered any app with major compatibility problems.

Re:Instability? (1)

LordSnooty (853791) | about 7 years ago | (#18609277)

and I haven't encountered any app with major compatibility problems.
That implies you had minor compatibility problems - did you?

Re:Instability? (1)

thepotoo (829391) | about 7 years ago | (#18609063)

95% of the problems I've seen with Vista are driver related. I have one system which is rock solid stable on both Ubuntu and XP, but when I "upgraded" to vista, I encountered some serious issues with the sound and video card drivers (nVidia and RealTek AC97, IIRC). I tried other brands' products (ATI and Soundblaster) and found that my stability went up quite a lot (but still, not enough to keep Vista around).

Mostly unrelated to this is the fact that Vista is considerably slower than XP on the same system. Framerates dropped by 15-20 FPS (FEAR Combat XP: 35-40FPS, Vista: 15-20FPS), and startup times went from a minute to upwards of two. Launching OpenOffice more than doubled in time.

My advice is the same as everyone else's on this site: hold off on vista as long as you can.

Not so for me (1, Funny)

mobby_6kl (668092) | about 7 years ago | (#18608743)

Didn't have Vista crash (at all) during the last 30, or slightly more, days in Vista. So, no data loss. Burned DVDs just fine. Most hardware worked fine too, just had to use drivers other than the latest version for my Zen. Now, it's possible that some drivers didn't work with Vista so I can't comment on that, but otherwise it looks like this guy's just upset that he didn't get his check (or is it a laptop now?).

Unstable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18608751)

I've been using Vista for over 2 months now, and i've got plenty of complaints, but unstable is not one of them.

It has never crashed, frozen or anything of that sort.
I think the author should look into his drivers and/or hardware.

It is however horribly, horribly slow.

Summary: some guy dumps Linux for Vista (3, Funny)

The_Abortionist (930834) | about 7 years ago | (#18608759)

I'm not surprised about the conclusion. Microsoft has spent years getting Vista ready for prime time.

Considering all the developpers and testers working to make Windows Vista the best operating system the world has ever seen, I think we should not judge Linux too harshly only because Vista is more stable and more secure. Linux will probably catch up anyway in maybe half a decade.

My experience (2, Interesting)

blackmonday (607916) | about 7 years ago | (#18608761)

I evaluated Vista on a mild machine - Dual Core Pentium D, Intel 950 graphics, 1 GB memory. Surprisingly, 50% of my system memory was being used by Windows and Aero. That was pretty much all I needed to know that I was sticking with XP for a little while longer.

Re:My experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18608945)

Vista will always use at least 50% of your ram, it will let go of it when an application needs it. This is an idea already in place in many other operating systems... which is a pretty valid when you think about it - why NOT use ram? You paid for it!

Re:My experience (4, Informative)

0racle (667029) | about 7 years ago | (#18608957)

Windows will use what it can until something else needs it. Unused Ram is wasted ram.

Re:My experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18608985)

Remember - Vista 'pre-caches' things into memory that it thinks you may want to use. that causes a lot of your memory to be 'used' when in reality it can dump that cache in a heartbeat if another application requests it. For the record - I am NOT a M$ fanboy by any means but I got roped into a laptop with Vista Preinstalled...

Re:My experience (1)

Osty (16825) | about 7 years ago | (#18609005)

I evaluated Vista on a mild machine - Dual Core Pentium D, Intel 950 graphics, 1 GB memory. Surprisingly, 50% of my system memory was being used by Windows and Aero. That was pretty much all I needed to know that I was sticking with XP for a little while longer.

See what I highlighted in bold. Intel's integrated graphics chips generally suck. While the 950 can run Aero, it really shouldn't. As you found out first-hand, the 950 offloads shader processing to the CPU, thus completely defeating the point of an independent GPU. Try turning off Aero and see how it behaves. I suspect you'll have a much better experience.

Re:My experience (1)

Osty (16825) | about 7 years ago | (#18609103)

Okay, I need to work on reading comprehension :). I read that as using "50% of CPU" not system RAM. As others have pointed out, Vista works much more like Linux than XP with respect to RAM -- it will use as much as it can for buffers and caches, and relinquish it as necessary. Unused RAM is a waste, so why shouldn't Vista use it while it can?

I don't like Vista.... (3, Insightful)

8127972 (73495) | about 7 years ago | (#18608767)

.... But to say that it is "dangerously unstable" seems a bit much. Perhaps this guy had hardware issues that were responsible for the OS being unstable?

Printer problem (1)

Griffinart (957548) | about 7 years ago | (#18608839)

30 days and he wasn't able to get his HP 1020 printer to work. Considering even without a native 1020 driver from HP he could have used the included HP Laserjet family PCL5 driver included with Vista to have a working printer, It really throws an unfavorable shadow over the rest of his review for me.

Re:Printer problem (1)

HolyCrapSCOsux (700114) | about 7 years ago | (#18609015)

bias: I only use Windows at work - XP Pro (Downgraded from XP64 due to Driver issues)

Do you expect the average (Windows) user to know that that printer can use a PCL5 driver? How about to even have ever seen the letters P,C,L, and the Number 5 occur together in thier life?

My HPLaserJet 1018 Just Works(tm) on my Fedora Core 5 machine at home. I am by no means a Linux geek, I just need both low latency and Eve-Online. Linux Does both without needing a huge bank account.

Re:Printer problem (1)

Griffinart (957548) | about 7 years ago | (#18609255)

No I don't but HardOCP is not a review site for average users. It's is a site for Overclockers, Linux users and advanced Windows users. It is not a web site for novice computer users, so yes, they should have known to look for a PCL driver.

Yawn (5, Insightful)

VividU (175339) | about 7 years ago | (#18608849)

Go back and you'll see the exact same comments when Windows 2000 came out, when Windows XP was released, when the first Xbox was released and when the Xbox 360 was released.

Re:Yawn (1)

Pausanias (681077) | about 7 years ago | (#18608995)

If there weren't comments like this for Vista, that would imply it is a better operating system. If there are as many comments like this for Vista as there were for XP, then that would imply that Vista is as good. If there are many, many, many more comments like this for Vista than there were for XP or 2000, then that implies that Vista is a far, far, far worse operating system.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18609169)

Yes except I, the average consumer, felt motivated to update to the new version of Windows those times. This time I don't plan on updating unless the machine I purchase has Vista pre-installed. Now, most of the word of mouth I get, people don't speak well of Vista, do not plan on getting it voluntarily, and only have negative experiences to discuss.

I am currently a college student and my campus is offered vista for free--download the dvd and get the cd-key through email thats it... But from what people tell me this will be a mistake.

Re:Yawn (0, Redundant)

MathFox (686808) | about 7 years ago | (#18609235)

Go back and you'll see the exact same comments when Windows 2000 came out, when Windows XP was released, when the first Xbox was released and when the Xbox 360 was released.
Microsoft still doesn't know how to make an operating system that works...

YAWN

It's the Drivers... (1)

georgep77 (97111) | about 7 years ago | (#18608901)

My experience has been that the 64bit version was dead stable (not a single hiccup) and once I got a non-nvidia sound driver so was the 32bit version. Before I downloaded a "generic" C-Media sound driver the nvidia one crashed at least every 20 minutes and had me very close to re-imaging my disk back to the 64bit version. My only gripe is that I cannot mount my EXT3 volumes from within Vista (was doing this in XP with the extIFS driver).

Windows update still tells me that they have an updated sound driver for me to install (the buggy nvidia one).

My triple boot (Ubuntu 6.06, XP-Pro, Vista-Ulti) now defaults to Vista (I know, I know but I'm currently working on a C# app in VS2005).

Cheers,
    _GP_

Re:It's the Drivers... (1)

Critical_ (25211) | about 7 years ago | (#18609275)

I agree that the biggest problem in Windows is the drivers. Mainly AC97 audio and nVidia are the main culprits. I fixed a lot of my Vista woes by installing the latest Realtek AC97 drivers. I'm still waiting on proper video drivers. Which generic C-Media sound driver are you using?

gnQ4a (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18609021)

That has grown up Out of bed in the conversation and vitality. Its flaws in the BSD had at lunchtime

Not seeing the same issues... (2, Interesting)

nutznboltz2003 (832752) | about 7 years ago | (#18609025)

I've been using the Business edition of Vista since November. At no time has the system crashed on me, or become overly unstable. When I first started using it, my "Vista Ready" laptop (HP nc6320) only had 512MB of ram, and most of the hardware devices were not recognized and HP did not have Vista drivers either. The first few weeks were a pain, but Vista was usable.

Slapping in an 1GB XD card that supported Vista Ready Boost really made a difference while I waited for the new memory chip to come in. Got the unit up to 1GB, and disabled non-recognized hardware until Vista drivers were available and I was good to go. Vista recognized the most important things to me, my wireless card and CD burner. It did not recognize my video chip set, but still gave me the option of 1024x768, so I was fine. I don't do gaming on this laptop, as it is a work one, so the features I needed were there. Eventually, sound drivers, proper video drivers, and the annoying finger print reader drivers were released.

Now, I will state that Vista should really be run with at least 2GB of ram, as it will use every bit it can get, but even with 1GB, my system has been very stable. Sure, I don't get the fancy Aero features, but I would likely turn them off anyways. On my work system, I like to run as much on the lean side as possible.

As for TFA, I'm not sure what to think. It's obvious that he has some hardware issues on his machine that he needs to look into, and he should have known better than running software like QuickTime that had known issues. I really wonder how much of his problems were caused by Vista, and how much were caused by trying to run legacy/non-updated software.

Normally, I'm all for bashing Microsoft, being a Linux/Mac OS X user normally, but even I can't agree with this article.

My Vistaring (3, Interesting)

Spad (470073) | about 7 years ago | (#18609045)

I had Vista installed on my PC at work for about a month, but in the end I had to go back to XP. It wasn't a performance issue - the PC wouldn't do Aero but it ran pretty well even with the default Vista interface - it wasn't even UAC (which was switched off on day one). The biggest problem I had by far was that nothing would run: Exchange 2003 tools won't install. The Landesk Management console won't install. The ELM management console won't install. NT User/Computer manager won't run (Yes, I know). Even our call logging software (Sunrise) had serious install issues that could only be resolved by installing it as a Domain Admin. Put bluntly, it got to the point where I couldn't do my job properly because none of the tools I use on a daily basis would install or run under Vista.

Now, some of this is down to the software manufacturers for not being on the ball, some of it is due to things like MS moving all the IIS stuff so that older apps can no longer find it. Not to mention the fact that the Exchange 2003 tools are a Microsoft Product and they're not intending to provide an installation method under Vista *at all*. Even the Exchange 2007 tools have been looking a bit flaky where Vista is concerned.

Did you really lose data you need? (1)

brewstate (1018558) | about 7 years ago | (#18609095)

Lets face it your hard-drive gets cluttered with useless data. As a new (undocumented) feature the all new Vista OS will automatically clean your system without any nagging questions like do you really need it. This and many more undocumented features are sure to listed in many more forums just like this. Buy Vista Ultimate it is Pretty and it costs more so you may do less.

Vista! 80% as good as the next guy! (4, Insightful)

Wylfing (144940) | about 7 years ago | (#18609155)

I haven't used Vista at all yet, but for the sake of argument I will assume that this review is a good indication of Vista's quality: a bit less good than XP. Now I have used XP, extensively, and I have used Linux extensively, and in my judgment the quality of a distribution like Fedora or Ubuntu is about on par with the quality of XP. You get roughly the same number of annoyances, the same amount of flaky behavior, and the same number of breakages, some of which you can fix and some of which you can't.

With Vista, apparently I need to knock it down 10% or so from XP in terms of its quality. Plus (and this is a big one) it actively works against the user with intentional breakages. DVD burning tools that produce discs only readable on Vista? Come again? IE7 objects to downloads from Sourceforge? Nice. So I'll take off another 10% for these shenanigans. That means Vista is about 80% as good as Ubuntu.

Where did the billions of dollars and years of development go? Why can't Redmond put out an OS that is at least as good as the freebie alternative? They should be selling an OS that is dramatically better than anything else available. Why aren't they?

I am not a Vista fan (1)

Chicken04GTO (957041) | about 7 years ago | (#18609165)

But MAN that article was biased. In once section he says "This was not the only difficulty we had with hardware." and then promptly listed 5 things that worked flawlessly. WTF?

The article was 90% (it worked fine and I have no problems) and the rest was (I am annoyed by UAC and dont understand how it works)+ I had a single driver issue ZOMG. Id like to see a raise of hands of people who've installed Linux without a SINGLE driver/hardware issue (so I can chop it off because your a liar)

Power user indeed.
LIke someone said, this is XP and 2K all over again. Wait until SP1, and it will be fine. Early adopters, good luck.

Stability (1)

wytcld (179112) | about 7 years ago | (#18609191)

Inevitably any discussion of stability will include anecdotes from people who've had a rock solid experience, and others from people who've had frequent problems. What's we need is statistics from a larger population. The disease exists, but what are the odds that a particular user is going to catch it if they visit Vistaland? If a corporation migrates 10,000 desktops to Vista, what percent will then be unstable systems? What percent was before the migration?

On the one hand, it should be so vanishingly small that reports like the article under discussion here just don't happen. Because if it's something like even 3% of systems going unstable after migration, that firm with 10,000 desktops now has 300 people - some of them in core functions - who've just had their productivity hobbled (presuming they had stable systems before). And those 300 people will require how many hours from how many support staff to get beyond their problems (or will they just silently accept it, perhaps as something that must be their own fault?). But if 97% of the systems are stable, in discussions like here there will be plenty of posters testifying to their rock solid experience. Those testimonies are almost pointless - certainly any operating system has some portion of hardware, peripherals and applications on which it will be about flawless. But whether that's the experience of 60% or 99.9% of users makes worlds of difference.

/.tting glee (0)

pruneau (208454) | about 7 years ago | (#18609217)

OK:
- hardocp is slashdotted
- mirrordot is slashdotted too (!).
Where is mirrormirrordotdot, when the /. gleeful "let's bash vista" trolls need it ?.

Job Security! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18609233)

2500+ PC's all slated for....Vista

Good bye Life....

I QUIT!

Job Vacancy - Help Desk

My one-day experience with Vista (1)

Mononoke (88668) | about 7 years ago | (#18609241)

Yesterday I had the "pleasure" of using a laptop that came loaded with Vista as the master source for a full day of powerpoint presentations. One corrupted presentation brought up a nonsense error about "missing text attributes," but the best was the presentation that came on a DVD-r disk. The laptop spent 5 minutes reading the disk, then decided to hard freeze. Luckily, I had my MacBookPro sitting next to me, and in less than a minute I had the presentation off the DVD and onto a USB drive so that I could then load it onto the Vista machine. The presentation was fine. No telling what the laptop didn't like about the DVD. (Oh, and it was one of those silly Dell XPS laptops with more superfluous lighting than a dozen ricers on any Friday night. Highly-polished turd, that one is.)

Not to pile on, but... (4, Interesting)

LibertineR (591918) | about 7 years ago | (#18609265)

At this very moment, my primary workstation is in the middle of a Spinrite recovery cycle, because Vista keeps corrupting my SATA Raid, and cause it to disapear.

This computer dual boots XP, where this never happens. The RAID driver is exactly the same on both OS's so I blame Vista.

DVD compatibility problems? (4, Informative)

yuna49 (905461) | about 7 years ago | (#18609293)

For me, the most striking feature of his review concerned burning DVDs. He claimed that Vista uses a new file format for DVDs that isn't backward compatible with earlier Windows versions, not to mention being incompatible with Linux, Mac, etc. I'm puzzled about why I haven't heard more about this problem if it's real. For those of you running Vista, have you had problems writing data DVDs that work with non-Vista systems? Did you have to choose specifically to use the traditional format when burning the DVD? Is it really non-obvious how to make the traditional format the default as he suggests?

This seems like a show-stopper to me for anyone wanting to exchange data with non-Vista users, especially if the default is to use the Vista-only format. The fact that I haven't heard this complaint before makes me suspicious that it's something unique to his setup, but not being a Windows user I have no basis to judge.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...