Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 25th May 2006 20:19 UTC
Windows Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer denied reports that Vista will be delayed by a few weeks. In the meantime, a day after Microsoft announced availability of Windows Vista Beta 2, the first testers are overcoming download bottlenecks and obtaining bits. While many are finding the latest build to be more stable and better-performing, they also are still hitting driver and application compatibility issues, among other system problems.
Order by: Score:
Steve Ballmer
by Drune on Thu 25th May 2006 20:31 UTC
Drune
Member since:
2005-12-04

Who Cares about Steve Ballmer ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE: Steve Ballmer
by tomcat on Thu 25th May 2006 20:36 UTC in reply to "Steve Ballmer"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I would assume Steve Ballmer, his family, and Microsoft shareholders care about Steve Ballmer ...

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Steve Ballmer
by Mark Williamson on Fri 26th May 2006 11:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Steve Ballmer"
Mark Williamson Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh, I doubt his family are that bothered - he won't let them use Google or buy iPods, remember ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Steve Ballmer
by kajaman on Thu 25th May 2006 20:39 UTC in reply to "Steve Ballmer"
kajaman Member since:
2006-01-06

oh, so he is still Microsoft's CEO... that explains a lot ;)

Reply Score: 1

back to normal
by present_arms on Thu 25th May 2006 20:38 UTC
present_arms
Member since:
2005-07-09

"While many are finding the latest build to be more stable and better-performing, they also are still hitting driver and application compatibility issues, among other system problems." As I said, back to normal.

Reply Score: 2

RE: back to normal
by Gullible Jones on Thu 25th May 2006 20:58 UTC in reply to "back to normal "
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

Well, remember that this OS is going to be released in 2007... They've got a while to fix things up.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: back to normal
by raver31 on Thu 25th May 2006 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE: back to normal "
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Not when 40% needs to be re-written.

I have tried it on standard Dells and standard HP, also on top of the range custom built PCs, and each one has problems.
It worked fine on an IBM Thinkpad, but that was beefed up with 3GB ram.

All you people who have not tried a build of Vista are in for a nasty shock when you install it yourself.

You can do all the hoping and wishing that Microsoft will sort things out and you will have the best desktop in the street. Unfortunately, take it form someone who has tried it. Get yourself another system instead.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: back to normal
by CPUGuy on Thu 25th May 2006 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: back to normal "
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

Save for bad driver support, I've had no problems with Beta2

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: back to normal
by raver31 on Thu 25th May 2006 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: back to normal "
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

emmmm. that actually is a problem. in fact it is a rather large problem

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: back to normal
by CPUGuy on Fri 26th May 2006 02:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: back to normal "
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

A problem that will correct itself and something that has nothing to do with Microsoft at all.

Most devices have at least basic support, so you can use the product, just not the extras.

It's the special companies, like Creative (big suprise) that are lacking in their driver development completely.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: back to normal
by Gullible Jones on Thu 25th May 2006 21:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: back to normal "
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

Where do you get the 40% figure? I once saw an article here to that effect, but it turned out to be bogus. You're probably quite right about the RAM consumption though, that's already a huge problem for XP.

(FWIW, you do bring up a good point - I haven't tried Vista, and probably won't, so I'll admit there's probably stuff I'm missing.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: back to normal
by raver31 on Fri 26th May 2006 00:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: back to normal "
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

It is here;

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Computing/Platforms?Article=/Computing...

The article claims 60% but Microsoft denied it immediately and stated that only 40% was needed rewritten, and that this is being transferred over to the Xbox team.
Read about that at ;

http://msdn.microsoft.com/developercenters/

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: back to normal
by Gullible Jones on Fri 26th May 2006 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: back to normal "
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

Wait, where on the site you gave does it say that about 40%?

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: back to normal
by JonathanBThompson on Fri 26th May 2006 00:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: back to normal "
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

1. Your MSDN link is a very generic directory link: which page did you have in mind for people to view? A worthless link in practice.

2. That Smart House "article" is written at about the level of quality a huge amount of stuff posted/linked to here on OSNews is: shoddy writing, either in spelling or on content and correctness. Any supposedly "professional" article should be proofread and spellchecked, lest easy-to-spot dumb mistakes like this direct quote happen, which any spellchecker would catch:

"Microsoft has also admitted that it has major problems in it's Windows division and has has immediatly initiated a total restructure of the division, a move that comes after a costly delay in rolling out its Vista program."

Did you catch the missing 'e' in a certain word? I certainly did!

Now, go back to their first sentence at the top of the article, which says:

"Up to 60% of the code in the new consumer version of Microsoft new Vista operating system is set to be rewritten as the Company "scrambles" to fix internal problems a Microsoft insider has confirmed to SHN."

Now, carefully read everything below with that article: absolutely nothing supports the statement of 60% of all Vista code needs to be rewritten, when taken in context later on when they mention media and entertainment stuff as needing to be rewritten, which most certainly is not 60% of the Vista code by lines of code or total system functionality: the most reasonable conclusion is that up to (maybe, if that: again, there's no quote to support their claims) 60% of that limited subset of Vista code (the media and entertainment stuff) needs to be rewritten.

David Richards was pulling stuff out of his butt when he gave that headline quote: I'd suggest you not be his bathroom servant and wipe his butt and grab it without question ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: back to normal
by sappyvcv on Fri 26th May 2006 13:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: back to normal "
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

I've installed 3 different builds of Vista. The latest one ran the best.

The GUI is slightly laggy sometimes, but that's because of the drivers, not Windows itself.

Performance wise, it was fine.

Reply Score: 0

they always deny
by tiiim on Thu 25th May 2006 20:44 UTC
tiiim
Member since:
2005-09-02

Yeah yeah they always deny blah blah give it a couple weeks it be official.. anything to keep those last few cents safe with the shares....

Reply Score: 1

RE: they always deny
by the__dude on Fri 26th May 2006 20:15 UTC in reply to "they always deny"
the__dude Member since:
2006-02-27

Yeah yeah they always deny blah blah give it a couple weeks it be official.. anything to keep those last few cents safe with the shares....
----

Yea, darn that Microsoft for doing what any other company would do!

Reply Score: 1

lies
by sbenitezb on Thu 25th May 2006 20:56 UTC
sbenitezb
Member since:
2005-07-22

Who can trust MS after all delays?

Reply Score: 4

RE: lies
by Drune on Thu 25th May 2006 20:58 UTC in reply to "lies"
Drune Member since:
2005-12-04

Steve Ballmer trust ;)

Reply Score: 1

sigh
by jeroenclcl on Thu 25th May 2006 21:29 UTC
jeroenclcl
Member since:
2006-04-09

problems? driver hickups? Hence the word: Beta....

Reply Score: 2

Sounds like the RC's for XP...
by DrillSgt on Thu 25th May 2006 21:32 UTC
DrillSgt
Member since:
2005-12-02

The Beta and RC's for XP were the same way. Of course there are driver and application compatibility problems. Why? Cause the OS is not out or supported yet. With XP the Nvidia drivers, as well as Sound for Creative Live cards did not work until about 2 weeks after XP was officially released. This is no surprise, as vendors generally do not support a beta version.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Sounds like the RC's for XP...
by Kroc on Thu 25th May 2006 22:22 UTC in reply to "Sounds like the RC's for XP..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Agreed, moving from a 9x core to an NT core was a much bigger hurdle than Vista will be.

Reply Score: 1

Must be
by Sphinx on Thu 25th May 2006 23:20 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

Why they call it testing.

Reply Score: 1

Compatibility
by godsolete on Fri 26th May 2006 00:02 UTC
godsolete
Member since:
2006-05-10

I still don't quite understand why Aero must be turned off for certain programs to run. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. On the gaming side, they really really need to work on compatibility issues. Half my games won't even operate in Vista. They crash or refuse to start with strange errors. Forget Gametap running at all, even with proper permissions.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Compatibility
by CPUGuy on Fri 26th May 2006 17:13 UTC in reply to " Compatibility"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

This is because your video drivers, most likely, do not yet support OpenGL.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Compatibility
by n4cer on Fri 26th May 2006 22:39 UTC in reply to " Compatibility"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

I still don't quite understand why Aero must be turned off for certain programs to run. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. On the gaming side, they really really need to work on compatibility issues. Half my games won't even operate in Vista. They crash or refuse to start with strange errors. Forget Gametap running at all, even with proper permissions.

It's simple. Anything that tries to get exclusive access to the front-buffer of the GPU will disable the DWM because the DWM and the other application can't both access the buffer. Some legacy apps may do this (OpenGL, some DirectDraw, some video, etc.), so the DWM gets out of the way to allow the legacy app to run.

This issue should be fairly rare as OpenGL is routed through D3D if you don't have a Vista ICD (until Beta 2, no vendors shipped Vista ICDs. NVIDIA, and possibly ATI have included one in the latest drivers on their respective websites.). Whether routed via D3D or the IHV's Vista ICD, you will get acceleration without disabling the DWM. Were possible, the other APIs have also been updated to work around this issue, however it can still occur.

Gaming compatibility is largely an IHV driver issue. IHV drivers weren't focused on games or optimizations until now. Most were (and still are in some ways) focused on basic functionality and stability.

Edited 2006-05-26 22:43

Reply Score: 1

Question for Thom
by Scott on Fri 26th May 2006 00:13 UTC
Scott
Member since:
2005-09-11

Who are "they" whom are still hitting driver and compatibility issues -- source? I'm sure people are, but I'm getting the impression you have more to add.

Reply Score: 1

So what?
by naelurec on Fri 26th May 2006 02:17 UTC
naelurec
Member since:
2006-02-15

Remember back to 1998 .. In April, Bill Gates was showing off Windows 98 at COMDEX and it blue screened during a prepared and tested presentation. Just two months later, Windows 98 was released to the masses as the final shipping product.

Granted, it wasn't until Win98SE was released a year later that it was considered "release worthy" by most users. (the original version had significant compatibility and stability issues).

Perhaps in 18 months, Vista will be an OS worth migrating to.. you know, once service pack 2 or "Vista Second Edition" is released.

Reply Score: 1

What do you expect?
by SpasmaticSeacow on Fri 26th May 2006 13:51 UTC
SpasmaticSeacow
Member since:
2006-02-17

Microsoft typically offers no or little hardware support. They rely on third parties for most drivers (sort of the opposite of their competition, but being so big they can off-load that development cost on the hardware vendors). Drivers for hardware will lag -- now you have stubs.

Second, the original application-compatibility guess for Vista was about 40% by Microsoft's own reckoning. Dropping features upped that figure, but backwards compatibility with non-Microsoft software was not at the top of the design goals list. It's even less of a concern now since they appear to be warming to the idea that the initial adoption rate will be slow -- there will be plenty of time to upgrade all of their software.

I've fiddled with Vista a little bit. So far, it looks pretty good. Sure, there's all sorts of little bugs (actually, some of them so obvious I can't understand why they've not been addressed yet), but little that's a show stopper. At the same time, I'm not sure I see much about it that's blatantly compelling that might give cause to a user of XP to upgrade (save for Aero, which is at least an improvement over the sophomoric XP appearance).

Reply Score: 1

By the way...
by GStepper on Fri 26th May 2006 16:56 UTC
GStepper
Member since:
2006-03-08

Can someone explain me why I should buy any single Microsoft product ?

What will I be able to do with Microsoft products than I can't do with non-Microsoft products ?

What are the killing technologies/features invented by Microsoft that would make me buy a Microsoft product ?

I ask these questions because I'd like to understand why so many people "defend" Microsoft's cause when I can't find ANY reason (tech-wise or business-wise) to "give" them a single cent of my hard-earned money...

Please show me the way ;-)

Reply Score: 1

Whats worse?
by unoengborg on Fri 26th May 2006 17:43 UTC
unoengborg
Member since:
2005-07-06

A system that ships on time but doesn't work as expected, or a delayed one that actually works.

Given that windows user have been waiting, hoping, and in some cases even in vain paid site licens fees hoping that a new windows version should be included, for a very long time by now a few weeks more or less shouldn't make much difference.

Not even a few months or a year delay would be a problem if whats shipped actually is rock solid, and the beginning of the new era of safe and functional OSes that Microsoft have promised for so long.

Micrsoft have allready blown their chance of shipping in time, they can't afford not to fullfill their other more or less clear promises to their customers.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Whats worse?
by twenex on Mon 29th May 2006 12:32 UTC in reply to "Whats worse?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

A system that ships on time but doesn't work as expected, or a delayed one that actually works.

They've missed the first of your deadlines by miles already, and they'll probably miss the second, too. "Actually working" software?! From Microsoft?!

Given that windows user[s] have been waiting, hoping, and in some cases even in vain paid site licens fees hoping that a new windows version should be included, for a very long time by now a few weeks more or less shouldn't make much difference.

People should be suing MS left, right and centre for not living up to their promises. But then why change the habit of a lifetime?

Not even a few months or a year delay would be a problem if whats shipped actually is rock solid, and the beginning of the new era of safe and functional OSes that Microsoft have promised for so long.

Yeah, how long is it now? 11 years at least? And you're STILL waiting?!

Micrsoft have allready blown their chance of shipping in time, they can't afford not to fullfill their other more or less clear promises to their customers.

Of course they can. Putting up with MS shoddiness and broken promises is almost an innate human trait.

Reply Score: 1