Why do people hate Vista?

[woodstock]

I have Vista on my new cheapie laptop, and other than the fact that I had to upgrade to 2mb of RAM, it seems to work just fine for my needs - strictly photos and surfing. I don't have any programs loaded though, not even photoshop (and I don't have photoshop on my XP laptop either, so I cannot compare...)

Are newer Vista systems better?

 

[Everskyward]

I have a new desktop which came with Vista 64 and I think it's fine. Some older programs need a patch to run on Vista but I didn't load that many old programs onto it. I'm not a techie by any means and I didn't need any help setting up the computer.

The main problem I had is that I have a Palm TX and Palm did not create software to sync it with 64 bit computers through the USB cable. According to their web site and forums they do not intend to do so in the future either. I consider this more a problem with Palm than with Vista and I will never buy another Palm product.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Beth: There are entire threads on the problems. Many installation issues when folks upgraded and many with backward compatibility.

I'm not a techie, but have stayed with XP until the smoke clears. They are already working on a new OS; some folks including a WSJ article state it's because they have resigned to the fact Vista had so many issues. If you recall, it was mainly marketed as having much better security features; geared to larger users. I'm not big, and didn't need to upgrade to that.

When I purchased my laptop, MS was trying to disallow folks from installing XP; trying to push to Vista. There was so much resistance, MS relented.

Best,

Dave

 

[Pi1otguy]

The problem is that some of our particularly old stuff (hardware) and a some software don't work with it. There are several pieces of hardware like scanners and old printers that did not work with Vista for almost a year as we waited for the companies to rewrite stuff.

Also, I don't like the concept of an OS requiring a decent video card because it wants to make a pretty desktop, having such high reqs., or having ~7 flavors. It's really a philosophical issue why I don't like Vista. I do not have Vista and will stick with XP til Windows 7. I'll ride XP until its no longer viable.

It's bad enough that I currently have a dos emulator. Next I might have to run Win 98 in a VM if I go to Vista incase I have incompatible progs I may want to run.

 

[ScottM]

I have had only one piece of SW not yet work with Vista. So far it is far more stable than my XP SP1 machine. But not as stable as my Win98 machine.

 

[woodstock]

Thanks everyone!

OK, so if I get a new desktop I should just have it built, and make them build it with XP then? I'm still searching for a desktop and get more confused the deeper I dig...

 

[ScottM]

I got Vista on my last desk top and no problems Beth. It works fine.

 

[BartY]

I think it is a couple of things.

1) Application and hardware compatibility. This is really a non-issue, to be honest. With the exception of perhaps the 95 to 98 transition, MS has never released an OS that was 100% compatible with every application and every piece of hardware that worked with the previous OS. It was the same story with XP and probably moreso since you still had a vast majority of folks running Win98, which was based on an entirely different platform than XP. I distinctly remember the howls about how bad XP was in terms of compatibility and was forcing people to buy all this new hardware and software. Interestingly, it always seems to be printers and anti-virus applications that seem to be at the root of this debate.

2) Microsoft's "Vista Capable" blunder. MS knew full well that Vista really needed more CPU and RAM than what they advertised to OEMs to get them to push the new OS, but went ahead and "certified" systems that were just barely capable of running it. Therefore, you had people howling about how bad performance was because they were trying to run Vista on what was just the bare minimum needed for good performance for XP, ie., 512megs of RAM.

About the only "issue" that I'm aware of that had a real impact on most users at home was the large file transfer bug, which seems to have been more or less corrected after the release of SP1. As far as I can tell, it seems that the problem was MS putting the cart before the horse, so to speak, as seems to be the case with more than a few of the new technologies implemented in Vista. There are quite a few "features" that if the hardware or application support was there, it would probably work just fine. Most of it is just enabled by default, which causes the drag on performance. If instead, they had made these "features" dependent on what hardware/software was installed and gave the user or application the ability to determine if it was going to be used, there probably would have been less impact on performance.

Vista is actually a very capable 64-bit OS, FWIW. There is really no comparison between it and the 64-bit version of XP in terms of hardware and application support. I run Vista Ultimate x64 at home and there is absolutely zero performance impact on the apps I run on a daily basis. There are some apps, like FSX for example, that I have actually been able to avoid some of the headaches encountered by XP and Vista 32 bit users because of the greater amount of addressable RAM available in a 64 bit OS.

 

[woodstock]

Thanks for the information - I guess that 2 mg update did the trick huh?

What is the diff b/w 32 bit and 64 bit?

I couldn't even tell you what my laptop has...

 

[ScottM]

What is the diff b/w 32 bit and 64 bit?

32 bits

Kinda lobbed that one up there for that answer.

 

[bstratt]

I bought a new laptop on the weekend. They ONLY come with Vista now - they withdrew the XP option either June 1st or July 1st (forget which). First thing I did was went in and uninstalled a lot of the crap that came with it. Then loaded up my new copy of Office Home 2007, then all my flight planning stuff. So far (two days) its running fine.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Thanks everyone!

OK, so if I get a new desktop I should just have it built, and make them build it with XP then? I'm still searching for a desktop and get more confused the deeper I dig...

No. Vista protects you from a lot of Internet malware that XP, even with security updates, does not. As a non-techie user, you are much better off using Vista.

You will have problems with Vista mainly if you are upgrading from XP and using lots of previously installed non-compatible software. New computers will - and should - come with Vista installed.

(Yes, I know, get a Mac. sigh )

 

[Pi1otguy]

No. Vista protects you from a lot of Internet malware that XP, even with security updates, does not. As a non-techie user, you are much better off using Vista.

To this day, I still believe the user is the biggest security hole in computing. With a some exceptions, the vast majority of security holes require user action. Soon we'll have the comp protecting me from me.

(Yes, I know, get a Mac. sigh )

You wouldn't say that if you worked for a school that went to Mac OS X. Turns out the old OS 7.x - 9 progs they love were tough to get going.

 

[bjohnson]

I purchased a laptop with Vista-64 and I can tell you that there is no USB driver for the Jeppesen Skybound USB reader. Jeppesen Tech support told me to buy a new laptop. But this is a new laptop! Geez

I hope someone comes up with a USB driver.

 

[Keith Lane]

First thing I did was went in and uninstalled a lot of the crap that came with it.

Might I suggest?

http://pcdecrapifier.com/

 

[wsuffa]

To this day, I still believe the user is the biggest security hole in computing. With a some exceptions, the vast majority of security holes require user action. Soon we'll have the comp protecting me from me.

Exactly. Vista, best as I can tell, is a user prevention operating system.

Real users use vi

 

[tdager]

Because it is hip and cool to hate on Vista.

 

[bbchien]

Bet, I just upgraded to a CoreDuo Vostro server, with XP. I have too many business applications that Vista does not support. Several pieces of hardware, too. When you buy business setup machines, there is no crap on them.

It's a screamer. My wife's Vista laptop doesn't work with anything, but that's OK 'cause she doesn't need it. My new laptop is a Latitide 3.8 pounder- running XP. Works with everything.

 

[KennyFlys]

I'll stick with XP as long as I possibly can. And, I thought folks still playing on 98SE were afraid of the Borg?

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

I thought the main reasons were
-most users did not need it
-it was seen purely as an opportunity to sell something
-it reduced compatibility
-it was a resource hog

these are the reasons I was given when I researched my laptop purchase, personally I have never used the system.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I've now converted two of my business machines to Vista, and am running three Vista laptops at home.

Other than some difficulty in getting them to "talk" to the older XP machines on a network, I've had zero problems. The OS is fast, easy to use, has some cool features, and (in my experience) completely disappears -- just like a good OS should.

Of course, Vista has been out for quite a while now. Early users ALWAYS have problems, which is why I've finally learned (as I approach my 50th birthday) that the place you want to be is on the cutting edge of SECOND generation technology. I spent way too many years on the bleeding edge, and, well, I lost a lot of blood doing so. My new motto: Let someone ELSE be the beta tester!

 

[AuntPeggy]

I have too many business applications that Vista does not support.

It is your software that does not support Vista - not the other way around.

My company is going through the throes of supporting Vista right now. The mantra of the day is, "I hate Vista." It is agony, but don't blame Vista. There were so many holes in previous Windows versions that malware could exploit and there was so much criticism of Microsoft for those holes that Vista security became necessary.

Eventually, you will be able to run any reputable software as a standard user with user access control on and still have all the features and functionality you had before.

 

[woodstock]

Well, it sounds like I'll be getting it anyway. I really don't think it's that bad, for the little I do. I'm not a computer maven though that is for sure...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

No. Vista protects you from a lot of Internet malware that XP, even with security updates, does not. As a non-techie user, you are much better off using Vista.

Good advice.

(Yes, I know, get a Mac. sigh )

No, don't. If you use Windows and are truly happy with it, there's no point in changing.

You wouldn't say that if you worked for a school that went to Mac OS X. Turns out the old OS 7.x - 9 progs they love were tough to get going.

Huh? Never had a problem. Most programs started using the "Carbon" API before OS X ever came out, as it would run on both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X. "Cocoa" is the OS X-only API, and pretty much all new software for the last several years has used it while the Carbon apps have faded out. Just through the normal course of updating, I never had an app that wouldn't run on the OS I was running at the time. Apple is very good at making huge changes - Both in the API's (Toolbox->Carbon->Cocoa) and even in hardware architecture (Motorola 680x0->PowerPC->Intel).

I thought the main reasons were
-most users did not need it
-it was seen purely as an opportunity to sell something
-it reduced compatibility
-it was a resource hog

these are the reasons I was given when I researched my laptop purchase, personally I have never used the system.

Right on Dave. From what I can tell, if you have a system with the resources to support it (and Beth, that 2GB of RAM was an *excellent* move toward that end) and the system comes with it and you don't have a need for a piece of software that's not compatible, there's no need to be afraid of it.

 

[mikea]

...Eventually, you will be able to run any reputable software as a standard user with user access control on and still have all the features and functionality you had before.

Woot! Just like you could with Unix, Linux, and Mac OS all along.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Woot! Just like you could with Unix, Linux, and Mac OS all along.

And, if Vista is as successful at filling its holes as we all hope, then the malware daemons will move on to Mac, Linux, and Unix to have their fun.

 

[jmaynard]

And, if Vista is as successful at filling its holes as we all hope, then the malware daemons will move on to Mac, Linux, and Unix to have their fun.

...where they'll disccover that the easy time they had of it in Windows is not at all what they'll have to deal with under a real OS designed to protect itself and other programs from a misbehaving application.

 

[mikea]

And, if Vista is as successful at filling its holes as we all hope, then the malware daemons will move on to Mac, Linux, and Unix to have their fun.

Uh, huh.

Except of course all of those had multiuser authentication and permissions from the first line of code and Windows had MS-DOS which was not so much.

Youse guys keep telling yerselves that. Been saying it for a lotta years now. You gotta figure the Russkies are running out of PCs they don't control so they'd love a new market.

It's not the Macs that get powed on the 'net before the owners remove their fingers from the tang on the Ethernet cable.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

...where they'll disccover that the easy time they had of it in Windows is not at all what they'll have to deal with under a real OS designed to protect itself and other programs from a misbehaving application.

Incorrect. What you meant to say is "...where they'll discover that they'll have a lot more time to exploit OS security holes -- which are patched more slowly and less effectively."

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-vs-Apple-Mac-OS-X-vs-Red-Hat-Linux-82966.shtml

It's not the Macs that get powed on the 'net before the owners remove their fingers from the tang on the Ethernet cable.

Which is because there's, what, about 73 of them total online at any one time.

Macs are hacked less frequently for the same reason that MGs are stolen less often than Toyotas: There's a crap ton fewer of them, and a crap ton less profit to be made from doing so. That's all. It's not logical to draw any conclusion otherwise.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Incorrect. What you meant to say is "...where they'll discover that they'll have a lot more time to exploit OS security holes -- which are patched more slowly and less effectively."

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-vs-Apple-Mac-OS-X-vs-Red-Hat-Linux-82966.shtml

First off... You have an article that solely quotes a company that sells a crapload of software for Windows, very little software for Mac, and none for Linux saying that Windows is more secure than Mac OS X or Linux. Gee, conflict of interest? If Windows is so secure, Symantec, WHY ARE YOUR PRODUCTS NECESSARY? Sorry, I don't buy any of it.

Which is because there's, what, about 73 of them total online at any one time.

Funny. The Mac's market share is growing... Apple's sales are going gangbusters. Their results over the past 8 quarters or so have been impressive. IIRC They're selling more in a quarter now than they did in a year a couple of years ago, and that trend continues.

Macs are hacked less frequently for the same reason that MGs are stolen less often than Toyotas: There's a crap ton fewer of them, and a crap ton less profit to be made from doing so. That's all. It's not logical to draw any conclusion otherwise.

I would expect Toyotas and MG's to be stolen in roughly the same proportion as the numbers out there.

However, why is it that basically 100% of the malware and exploits are on Windows, when Windows is nowhere near 100% of the installed base? Don't you think all these script kiddies would LOVE to have the fame of being the first guy to pown a large number of Macs in the wild? Wouldn't the malware folks LOVE to have a bunch of machines available to them that DON'T already have 100 other malware programs bogging them down? The argument that the Mac doesn't get hacked because there aren't any of them is bogus. Are they perfect? Heck no. But they're bunches better than Windows.

Now go back to the Spin Zone, willya?

 

[Henning]

Thanks for the information - I guess that 2 mg update did the trick huh?

What is the diff b/w 32 bit and 64 bit?

I couldn't even tell you what my laptop has...

Ahhhh, excellent question that I can't answer well.

I can answer you from what I know, and what the various sales pitches I encounter. For the record, I have a Lenovo X-61 with a Centrino Pro which is a dual processor (and this is the point where Vista 64 comes in), but I run Vista 32 and the RAM is full at 4.

The deal with Vista 64 was it was supposed to be that it allowed your dual processors in true parallel fashion so you basically had two computers running and you could have two applications running side by side without sharing resources slowing each other down. A feat which XP64 was not capable of. However, the manufacturers of ancillary equipment did/do not have the drivers for operating in the 64 bit mode, so they also built a 32bit, which was the prior standard and has been for several years, version which due to some of the equipment I have to hook up to, I have to use. It's a bit disappointing really not to be able to make full function of the processor since I often will be running navigation programs and Photoshop, or satellite internet and surfing/downloading/.... However, things are coming around and more stuff has the 64 biut drivers. The having to buy new printers and such, thats not that big of an issue to me since they rarely last as long as an operating system. My computers only last a year or so, but hopefully this one will do much better. I'll probably augment it with another computer later this year,
not sure if larger or smaller. Can you run a monitor WiFi or Bluetooth?

Anyway, that's the deal as I see it, but I'm like you with computers, I'm an end user, that's it. I will do physical repairs as turning screws is turning screws regardless of what you're turning on, but I am in no way a "techie".

The information above is my view based on my actual (fruitless) experience trying to use Vista64, and I have one other issue that I'm not sure is a Vista problem but when I close a Flash player like from a CNN video, IE & Firefox would crash. So far, Google Chrome has been exceptionally stable. Oh, also after being on for a few days it may develop a USB issue that requires a reboot.

 

[Bob Noel]

>It's not logical to draw any conclusion otherwise.

It's not that simple. Cars are stolen for a variety of reasons, whether it's for a joyride (in which case any car will do, the easier the better) or because the parts are valuable (in which case it doesn't matter how many there are).

If you ASSUME that OS X and Linux are as vulnerable as the various flavors of windows, then of course hackers should only target the OS with the dominant market share. But just counting the number of vulnerabilities is not a good measure of which OS is more secure. My house probably has more doors and windows (no pun) than your house. Does that make it less secure than yours? Put the best door lock available on your doors, it won't amount to a hill of beans if the door frame is some weak pine junk.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

First off... You have an article that solely quotes a company that sells a crapload of software for Windows, very little software for Mac, and none for Linux saying that Windows is more secure than Mac OS X or Linux. Gee, conflict of interest? If Windows is so secure, Symantec, WHY ARE YOUR PRODUCTS NECESSARY? Sorry, I don't buy any of it.

Well, sorry, but "I don't buy it" doesn't count for empirical, quantitative analysis. You provide some data of your own to refute it and we'll have a discussion. Until that happens, I've got facts to support my position and you've got... nothing.

Funny. The Mac's market share is growing... Apple's sales are going gangbusters. Their results over the past 8 quarters or so have been impressive. IIRC They're selling more in a quarter now than they did in a year a couple of years ago, and that trend continues.

Sure, they've been improving, but last time I checked (back early in the year sometime) Acer outsells Apple. Acer fer cripe's sakes. That's still a fringe, niche market, bordering on next-to-nothing. But I can get specific below:

I would expect Toyotas and MG's to be stolen in roughly the same proportion as the numbers out there.

However, why is it that basically 100% of the malware and exploits are on Windows, when Windows is nowhere near 100% of the installed base? Don't you think all these script kiddies would LOVE to have the fame of being the first guy to pown a large number of Macs in the wild? Wouldn't the malware folks LOVE to have a bunch of machines available to them that DON'T already have 100 other malware programs bogging them down? The argument that the Mac doesn't get hacked because there aren't any of them is bogus. Are they perfect? Heck no. But they're bunches better than Windows.

First of all, uh, you've got a numbers problem again: Windows (all varieties, 90.66%) actually is "near 100% of the installed base" whereas Mac (all varieties, 7.86%) is "nowhere near". So you're wrong on that count first off.

Secondly, your notion of the hacker mentality of "script kiddies" being the primary motivator for creating and propagating malware is a quite antiquated and wholly inaccurate view of the security landscape. That may have been true 10 years ago, but I can assure you it's not now. It's about making money. And considering that, the answer to your question that I highlighted above (which, as I already mentioned, has at least one majorly flawed and fully false assumption) should be so obvious that I don't think any further explanation is necessary.

Now go back to the Spin Zone, willya?

I would if I could, believe me!

 

[woodstock]

Ahhhh, excellent question that I can't answer well.

I can answer you from what I know, and what the various sales pitches I encounter. For the record, I have a Lenovo X-61 with a Centrino Pro which is a dual processor (and this is the point where Vista 64 comes in), but I run Vista 32 and the RAM is full at 4.

The deal with Vista 64 was it was supposed to be that it allowed your dual processors in true parallel fashion so you basically had two computers running and you could have two applications running side by side without sharing resources slowing each other down. A feat which XP64 was not capable of. However, the manufacturers of ancillary equipment did/do not have the drivers for operating in the 64 bit mode, so they also built a 32bit, which was the prior standard and has been for several years, version which due to some of the equipment I have to hook up to, I have to use. It's a bit disappointing really not to be able to make full function of the processor since I often will be running navigation programs and Photoshop, or satellite internet and surfing/downloading/.... However, things are coming around and more stuff has the 64 biut drivers. The having to buy new printers and such, thats not that big of an issue to me since they rarely last as long as an operating system. My computers only last a year or so, but hopefully this one will do much better. I'll probably augment it with another computer later this year,
not sure if larger or smaller. Can you run a monitor WiFi or Bluetooth?

Anyway, that's the deal as I see it, but I'm like you with computers, I'm an end user, that's it. I will do physical repairs as turning screws is turning screws regardless of what you're turning on, but I am in no way a "techie".

The information above is my view based on my actual (fruitless) experience trying to use Vista64, and I have one other issue that I'm not sure is a Vista problem but when I close a Flash player like from a CNN video, IE & Firefox would crash. So far, Google Chrome has been exceptionally stable. Oh, also after being on for a few days it may develop a USB issue that requires a reboot.

Thanks Henning. It's a done deal - my new 64 bit computer (which, I had delivered to work because I am always bloody here... and had to get home and THANK GOD FOR for convertibles b/c there is no way I'd have gotten that huge box into my 4 door little Mercedes or in its trunk, at all...) is now at home and in my foyer. I expect to have hauled it up the stairs this weekend and maybe even running!

I am the ultimate end user - I hear blah blah blah BETH blah blah blah BETH etc...

 

[rpadula]

I am the ultimate end user - I hear blah blah blah BETH blah blah blah BETH etc...

You mean like this?

 

[rpadula]

Good lord, are you people still fighting about this???

 

[woodstock]

You mean like this?

That is exactly what I was thinking of, too.. Good ol Gary Larson.

 

[mikea]

Good lord, are you people still fighting about this???

Once again somebody at his old job emailed Scott Adams, because that actually happened, twice, with the same outsource company.

You miss that prior to this the consultant tells the boss that the idiots that works there cost too much money - supporting all those diverse desktops - and we'll do it under contract for 9% less. Then they present the contract that say that doing 40% of the work the idiots are doing will cost extra and .... they will only support Windows users. The rest have to go...and the contract gets signed.

The joke is that the very guys who crushed the other than Windows OSs without mercy on the job have since bought Macs for use at home.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Well, sorry, but "I don't buy it" doesn't count for empirical, quantitative analysis. You provide some data of your own to refute it and we'll have a discussion. Until that happens, I've got facts to support my position and you've got... nothing.

No, you don't have facts. You have Symantec marketing garbage.

Secondly, your notion of the hacker mentality of "script kiddies" being the primary motivator for creating and propagating malware is a quite antiquated and wholly inaccurate view of the security landscape. That may have been true 10 years ago, but I can assure you it's not now. It's about making money.

And the guy who manages to hit 100% of the installed base will make WAY more money than the guy who can hit 78% (which is an installed base number I found yesterday while searching for that other article). Remember, installed base does NOT equal market share. Market share is "what percentage was sold this month/quarter/year." Macs tend to last longer, not from a durability perspective, but from a "how often do I need to replace this computer" perspective. (For example, despite my being a geek, I'm running on a laptop that's over two years old and I have no desire for a new one - This one is still as fast and capable as I want).

 

[ReverendSlappy]

No, you don't have facts.

Yeah, I sure do.

You have Symantec marketing garbage.

Then it should be easy for you to empirically refute the numbers I cited. Right?

And if you don't like that source, here's a better one that includes its source data. It's referencing 2007 vulnerabilities, but for the purpose of disproving your (still factually unfounded) assumption, it serves the purpose quite well.

Again: The notion that OS X is inherently more secure than any other OS is simply baseless in fact. Most data I've seen, in fact, indicates that the opposite is more likely.

And the guy who manages to hit 100% of the installed base will make WAY more money than the guy who can hit 78% (which is an installed base number I found yesterday while searching for that other article).

So what? The point is that the one that hits 90% of the installed base makes more than the one that hits 8%. It's a cost/benefit thing, just like a business: Why would these people spend their time developing (or in some cases, spend money paying people to develop) malware that only targets a tiny, tiny percentage of the population? There's always going to be a remainder, a percentage of the population that they won't be able to exploit at all and that they won't bother trying to. Going after the big chunks is the only thing that makes sense; trying to nail down that last 10% is, again, from a cost/benefit perspective, a waste of time, money, and effort -- especially when you consider that really only a fraction of that 90% is actually vulnerable itself.

Remember, installed base does NOT equal market share. Market share is "what percentage was sold this month/quarter/year."

And the numbers I cited were based on browser info. That's installed base, not market share... My market share comment was in reply to your sales comments.

Macs tend to last longer, not from a durability perspective, but from a "how often do I need to replace this computer" perspective. (For example, despite my being a geek, I'm running on a laptop that's over two years old and I have no desire for a new one - This one is still as fast and capable as I want).

While obviously that's immaterial from a security threat perspective, I'd point out that there are plenty of factors that go into that.