Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 19:51 UTC, submitted by Tyr.
Windows Computerworld's Scot Finnie details 20 things you won't like in Windows Vista, with a visual tour to prove it. He says that MS has favored security over end-user productivity, making the user feel like a rat caught in a maze with all the protect-you-from-yourself password-entry and 'Continue' boxes required by the User Account Controls feature. "Business and home users will be nonplussed by the blizzard of protect-you-from-yourself password-entry and 'Continue' boxes required by the User Account Controls feature, for example." Update: Apparantly, Vista Beta 2 sucks up battery juice much faster than XP does.
Order by: Score:
markus
Member since:
2006-01-14

They named Mac OS X the best OS in 2006 and 2007...

Another story on http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MTkyNDAsLCxobmV3cywsLDE= shows that thanks to Vistas build in security it may need seven steps to delete a shortcut from the desktop!

Reply Score: 1

slate Member since:
2006-04-04

2007?

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Would explain the RDF around Steve Jobs ;)

Reply Score: 1

Scot Finnie
by Tyr. on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 20:20 UTC
Tyr.
Member since:
2005-07-06

I really like Scot Finnie, I have been subscribed to his windows newsletter ( http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/ ) since about 2001. This guy is a hard-core Windows enthousiast, when he rates OsX Tiger as better than Vista (Beta) it is really something to consider.
Microsoft is losing mindshare among their opinion-leaders, not a good thing to happen to a company.

Edit: added link to newsletter.

Edited 2006-06-02 20:22

Reply Score: 5

I fail...
by dylansmrjones on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 20:35 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

to understand Microsoft on this.

Windows is not (IMHO) so insecure that they have to make it this difficult for users.

Reply Score: 2

20 ways to flame Vista
by Al2001 on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 20:48 UTC
Al2001
Member since:
2005-07-06

So the question is, are Microsoft and ATI correct that I might hit a video brick wall when running my 64MB ATI X300 in full Aero mode with transparency enabled? Time will tell. But I definitely don't like the idea that my recent hardware investments are suddenly out of date. And I very much doubt I'm alone with that feeling.

For someone who is apparently qualified to write an article like this he shows exceptional ignorance.

He bought a bottom of the range graphics this year to prepare for Vista? my heart bleeds that his £30 card will be out of date by next year.

I too have many reservations about Vista and was interested to know what his points were, once he mentioned OSX I immediately realised his intentions and left him to wallow in his own propaganda.

Reply Score: 2

RE: 20 ways to flame Vista
by junior on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 12:28 UTC in reply to "20 ways to flame Vista"
junior Member since:
2005-07-07

"I too have many reservations about Vista and was interested to know what his points were, once he mentioned OSX I immediately realised his intentions and left him to wallow in his own propaganda."

You make it sound like he's a Mac fanboy. Like someone else already pointed out, Finnie is a hardcore Winhead. You know, just like Paul Thurrot was before Vista started to suck.

And since when is a 64MB ATI X300 bottom of the range? Oh, wait.. don't answer that..

Edited 2006-06-03 12:29

Reply Score: 2

RE: 20 ways to flame Vista
by Ultimatebadass on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 12:41 UTC in reply to "20 ways to flame Vista"
Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

By "recent hardware investments" he probaly means his ThinkPad. He's kind of stuck with that 64MB X300 now and I understand his concerns.

Reply Score: 1

RE: 20 ways to flame Vista
by rayiner on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 15:37 UTC in reply to "20 ways to flame Vista"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

To be fair, OS X does its GPU thing perfectly fine on a GMA950 chipset, which is several times slower than even an X300 card. If Vista can't run well on what is really a decent GPU (1.2 gigapixels, pixel and vertex shaders, 6.4 GB/sec memory bus), then that indicates a problem with the system. A lot of people use integrated graphics (Intel is actually the GPU vendor with the largest market share), and an X300 is right about the performance level where integrated chips will be in the next couple of years.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: 20 ways to flame Vista
by sappyvcv on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE: 20 ways to flame Vista"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Quartz3d doesn't do all the same stuff as WPF, so it's not a fair comparison. We'll with with Leopard if they match it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: 20 ways to flame Vista
by rayiner on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 18:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 20 ways to flame Vista"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

There isn't really anything WPF can do that OS X's stack cannot. Both expose a PDF-like imaging model, both expose pixel shaders to 2D graphics, etc. The major difference between the two, aside from the API is that WPF renders vector graphics on the GPU, while Quartz does it on the CPU. On the other hand, Quartz 2D (as of Tiger), runs perfectly acceptably on a 1.67 GHz G4, and there is absolutely no reason an X300 should bog down with WPF.

The biggest issue here is likely optimization. Quartz 2D has been optimized over four or five years. It's implementation in Tiger is really fast, and approaches to speed of much more primitive APIs like QuickDraw. WPF is brand new, and hasn't seen the same sort of optimization. Of course, that's on of the advantages of OS X --- they've got a half-decade head start on the process.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: 20 ways to flame Vista
by sappyvcv on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 18:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 20 ways to flame Vista"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Does Quartz do compositing?
Does Quartz render text using the graphics card?
Does Quartz store all rednered windows as objects in video memory?

I didn't think it did all of these.

edit: This is a pretty good read of other things WPF does that are cool for developers: http://msdn.microsoft.com/winfx/technologies/presentation/default.a...

Edited 2006-06-03 18:17

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: 20 ways to flame Vista
by segedunum on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 20:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 20 ways to flame Vista"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Does Quartz do compositing?

Yes. That was the job of the Quartz Compositor and now Quartz Extreme.

Does Quartz render text using the graphics card?
Does Quartz store all rednered windows as objects in video memory?


Certainly can do, dependent on the capabilities of the hardware. Besides, rendering text using the graphics card looks absolutely awful and will continue to do so until graphics cards improve more. It just isn't a method that's scalable, and it certainly isn't pretty. I don't particularly consider font rendering and typography a graphical operation you can reasonably ask a GPU to do.

Additionally, I think he was referring to what WPF and Quartz can do, not how they do it. All you've said there is "WPF is going to make Vista use a tonne of video memory and process everything it can on the GPU, dictating a pretty hefty graphics card".

I know Vista has some minimum requirements, but when you start running it along with many other applications and games, God knows what you're going to need to get something acceptable. Making the GPU the primary processing unit seems to be in vogue (and whatever - the work has to be done somewhere), but in order to do what Microsoft wants the graphics card is going to have to be a whole computer in itself rather than a piece of hardware as a supplement to the main CPU, memory and hardware. That's a huge change and one I can't see working at all until hardware gets way more efficient. The only way we'll truly know is when it gets released and people start using it.

Edited 2006-06-03 20:46

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: 20 ways to flame Vista
by rayiner on Sun 4th Jun 2006 03:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 20 ways to flame Vista"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, Quartz does compositing. OS X has been fully double-buffered, courtesy of Quartz Compositor, since OS X 10.0.

Quartz renders text using the graphics card, to the same extent WPF does. It renders them as bitmaps, using the GPU to perform the compositing operation. It does not draw glyphs as vector shapes using the GPU, but neither does WPF.

Quartz does keep rendered objects as textures in video memory. It has done this since OS X Jaguar.

The only significant difference between WPF and what OS X has in Tiger is that WPF rasterizes vector graphics via the GPU, while Quartz 2D does it in software (by default --- Quartz 2D Extreme can do it on the GPU, but is disabled by default because it breaks apps).

Now, Vista probably leverages GPU effects more than OS X does, but its not a matter of capability. If you can do something in WPF, you can most likely achieve the same effect using Quartz 2D and CoreImage.

Reply Score: 2

same old story
by raver31 on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 20:52 UTC
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

He has been testing Microsoft products for 15 years, and gives a nasty review of software that is not even released.
He almost admits the next review he does will show how wonderful Vista is.... read between the lines in the last paragraph

Reply Score: 1

Qualms with the article
by Tom K on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 21:05 UTC
Tom K
Member since:
2005-07-06

The author comes off as whiney. I'm not particularly excited (or even 100% optimistic) about Vista, but come on ...

20. Minimum video system requirements are more like maximum -- Next-gen features (Aero) require next-gen hardware. He's complaining that his laptop with a 64 MB X300 isn't enough to run Aero at its highest eye-candy levels ... well boo-hoo.

19. Aero stratification will cause businesses woe -- This is up to the businesses and their IT departments to decide, and not a fault of Vista. If your IT department is bent on letting workers have all the eye candy ... get a new IT department -- preferrably one that has its priorities straight.

Oh, and OS X 10.4 on a Mac Mini doesn't even come close to the technological level of Aero+DX9 video. I say that as an Apple fan.

18. User Account Controls $#^%!~!!! -- 80% of this is praise for the features. The other 20% is complaining about Vista being overly cautious and asking you things every step of the way. With the quick-to-dismiss-dialog-boxes nature of the typical Windows user, this is what it has to come down to to keep Windows users safe from themselves.

17. Two words: Secure Desktop -- See above. Making the dialog modal is pretty much the only way to guarantee that a click-happy Windows user will give it some attention.

16. No way to access the Administrator account in Vista Beta 2 -- Two words: Beta 2. A few more words, from the author himself: "Presumably because Microsoft wants to force the issue and require beta testers to work within the constraints of User Access Controls."

15. Some first-blush networking peeves -- The first part is valid. I like shortcuts. Don't take them away. The second part, about network stacks, and "layering" ... author, please stick to what you know. How is this even a complaint? They have some extra networking technologies in Vista, and those technologies are available as removable components for each individual adapter. I see no problem.

14. Windows peer networking is still balky -- Again, stick to what you know. The "View workgroup computers" option never gave anything a "swift kick". The author should research SMB and how it works ... especially the concept of SMB masters and announcements. On a properly-configured network, it should never take "hours" for a Windows machine to show up in My Network Places.

IPv6 also has nothing to do with the SMB protocol and how machines announce themselves.

13. and 12. are valid complaints, as I've noticed a lot of this in Vista myself. There is too much clicking to get anywhere useful.

11. Display settings have changed for no apparently good reason -- This new layout is more logical. "Display" settings refer to settings of the display device. Window shade colours don't belong under "display" settings. That belongs under "Visual Appearance". I like this configuration -- it makes sense: the settings that a home user is most likely to change (screen saver, background, colours, sounds, mouse pointer, themes, etc.) are all located in one big root panel.

10. Where are the file menus? -- This is really a matter of defaults. Some people like file menus, some prefer to use the alternative interfaces. Personally, I *never* use the file menus in Explorer, so this sort of makes sense. The Office complaint is invalid, as the key change in Office is one of workflow pattern. The menus clobber that. I'm looking forward to Office 2007, actually.

9. Windows Defender Beta 2 is buggy -- This would be a valid complaint had this article been about "20 Things You Won't Like About Vista Beta 2". Such an obvious and simple bug will undoubtedly be fixed by the time RTM rolls around, making this an dubious point about the final version of Vista.

8. Problems without solutions -- Once again, Beta 2. The screenshot of the utility more depicts a program whose purpose is to show friendlier versions of system logs. And what's this complaint about IBM's ThinkPad software? Hello? Complain to IBM about their program putting itself in Add/Remove even though the installation wasn't successful.

7. Lack of Windows Sidebar Gadgets -- No sh*t, Sherlock. Vista is still 9 months away from shipping (maybe more). He's comparing OS X Tiger's widget count to Vista's. Well gee, I now am going to complain about the relative lack of KDE 4 widgets vs. KDE 3 "widgets". Valid? Not a chance.

6. Media Center isn't all there and falls flat -- File a bug report with ATI, and make sure you leave a note of the fact that you're using a BETA video driver. Someone tell me again why this is something I will not like about Vista final?

5. Faulty assumption on the Start Menu -- Not a faulty assumption at all. The faulty assumption is on the part of the author, when he assumes that most people will want to completely shut down their machine, as opposed to putting it in a low-power state. Apple calls it "Sleep", and I dare say that it's a hugely popular feature on their machines. Who wants to boot up their computer every single morning, when they can just wait the 3 seconds it takes to bring Vista out of a sleep state?

4. Installation takes forever -- Installation of the betas does indeed take a long time. Part of that reason is all the extra beta/debug-related stuff that is installed. The other reason is that this is a next-gen OS. How long does Fedora Core 5 take to install vs. Redhat 7? Windows XP vs. Windows 95?

3. Version control -- There are indeed two more versions than there need to be, but as long as you remember that Microsoft is distinguishing between consumers, professionals, and "enthusiasts", then the versioning becomes much clearer. Most Vista users will never be exposed to this anyway, as they will simply get a pre-installed copy with their next computer.

2. Price -- Sorry, but where were the concrete facts in this blurb? The author makes some guesstimates about prices ... and this is Reason #2 why I won't like Vista? This is where this article jumps over its 10th shark.

1. Little originality, sometimes with a loss of elegance -- This article isn't a comparison of OS X vs. Vista, it's reasons why I won't like Vista. I don't see any XP users being offered new features that were not present in XP saying "I don't like this, OS X is more elegant". Those users are already OS X users.

This article is a complete waste of time, and the author makes a total of about 4 valid to semi-valid points. The rest is pure and unadulterated whining. I think we should pool together some money and send this guy a technical dictionary. The term "beta" has a certain meaning when it comes to computer software -- he seems to stray from that understanding at times.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Qualms with the article
by AdamW on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 22:01 UTC in reply to "Qualms with the article"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

"18. User Account Controls $#^%!~!!! -- 80% of this is praise for the features. The other 20% is complaining about Vista being overly cautious and asking you things every step of the way. With the quick-to-dismiss-dialog-boxes nature of the typical Windows user, this is what it has to come down to to keep Windows users safe from themselves."

No, it's shooting your own feature in the foot.

If you see one security-related dialog box a day, you'll read it carefully and make an appropriate choice.

If you see a hundred security-related dialog boxes a day, you will immediately click OK without even reading the contents, and get very frustrated in the process.

Excess caution results in no security and peed off users: not a good result.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Qualms with the article
by CPUGuy on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Qualms with the article"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

Honestly, you don't see it much once you get your system setup with the apps you want and such.

Though there are still some bugs with how it actually works.... again, beta 2.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Qualms with the article
by Tom K on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Qualms with the article"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Indeed ... you have a point. The person who replied to you also has a point, though.

In any case, it beats having NO dialog at tall.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Qualms with the article
by n4cer on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 22:30 UTC in reply to "Qualms with the article"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

18. User Account Controls $#^%!~!!! -- 80% of this is praise for the features. The other 20% is complaining about Vista being overly cautious and asking you things every step of the way. With the quick-to-dismiss-dialog-boxes nature of the typical Windows user, this is what it has to come down to to keep Windows users safe from themselves.

MS is still working on reducing the number instances in which a prompt is required. As said by the OP, for someone who has tested for so long, you'd think they would know better than to make claims about beta software as if they will remain the same in the final product. For more info on UAC changes planned for Vista RC1, check this post:
http://blogs.msdn.com/uac/archive/2006/06/01/613098.aspx

17. Two words: Secure Desktop -- See above. Making the dialog modal is pretty much the only way to guarantee that a click-happy Windows user will give it some attention.

The dialog is modal because it appears on a totally seperate desktop than the one you were working on. The background shown is just a static screenshot of the normal work desktop. This is a security enhancement as other applications can't access this desktop and can't access the UAC prompt to programmatically confirm the prompt.

16. No way to access the Administrator account in Vista Beta 2 -- Two words: Beta 2. A few more words, from the author himself: "Presumably because Microsoft wants to force the issue and require beta testers to work within the constraints of User Access Controls."

The author needs to test more and jump to false conclusions less. The administrator account is accessible in Vista Beta 2 (just as in previous builds). Your default account has administrator rights, but Vista runs most apps as standard user even in this case for greater security. There are several ways to run apps with full admin rights. You can right-click on most items and choose Run as administrator. You can mark executables to run as admin via the compatibility tab in the exe's properties. You can start cmd or PowerShell as admin using the above method and anything run from that prompt will run as admin. You can also login with the default Administrator account by going to Safe Mode or possibly just entering the credentials for it in normal mode. There are likely other ways as well, however you shouldn't need to run as admin in most cases.

Edited 2006-06-02 22:31

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Qualms with the article
by Tom K on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 22:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Qualms with the article"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Thanks! That's some really useful information.

That's actually quite creative how that dialog is on its own desktop.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Qualms with the article
by atsureki on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 22:39 UTC in reply to "Qualms with the article"
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

Oh, and OS X 10.4 on a Mac Mini doesn't even come close to the technological level of Aero+DX9 video. I say that as an Apple fan.

He didn't say technological level. If I remember correctly, the word was features. What use does Aero Glass provide that Quartz doesn't already do on a Rage 128? I've got bilinear scaling, anti-aliasing, transparency, and Exposť with 16MB of video RAM. The rest is just special effects.

With the quick-to-dismiss-dialog-boxes nature of the typical Windows user, this is what it has to come down to to keep Windows users safe from themselves.

Users are quick to dismiss because Windows is quick to provide. This will only train people to take even less notice of what the dialogs are saying, if that's possible. When the dialogs come so frequently that most of them aren't worth reading, there becomes no visual difference between "I'm going to do what you just explicitly told me to do." and "A hacker is using your computer to trade illegal files and steal your credit card." Not to mention that Microsoft has a history of using messages that fall on the extremes, either so technical that only the programmer would get it or so oversimplified it's not even true.

17. Two words: Secure Desktop -- See above. Making the dialog modal is pretty much the only way to guarantee that a click-happy Windows user will give it some attention.

And what right does Microsoft have to force the user to do something? When I turn the computer on, I generally have some vague notion of what it is I want to do, and I can honestly say answering needless dialogs has never been it. A good operating system gets out of the way, but it appears Vista is specifically designed to get in the way.

10. Where are the file menus?

I'd like to say something about menus in general. I really hate that Microsoft has been deprecating them, first with "personalized" and now with off by default. The advantage of a menu system isn't that it's snappy. Buttons and context menus should be aiding in that area. Their use is in that they're a complete list of what the program can do. Apple Human Interface Guidelines tell programmers that all functions should be accessible through the menu bar. It works. Things are easy to find in OS X. With "personalized" menus, they're no longer complete, and digging just takes much longer, and off by default just creates an even more powerful block, potentially insurmountable for less experienced users. If there's no button to do it, it essentially can't be done.

Not a faulty assumption at all. The faulty assumption is on the part of the author, when he assumes that most people will want to completely shut down their machine, as opposed to putting it in a low-power state.

People who want startup to be instant will take the initiative to find the feature. Everyone else wants to keep any electricity from being spent on an appliance that's not doing anything. I don't keep my toaster preheated all day, and most people wouldn't want their computer at the ready 24/7, no matter how low a non-zero number the wattage is. But that's not my problem with it. Labelling a sleep button with the traditional 1/0 symbol is mislabelling the button. It's lying to the user. When I hit a power toggle, I want power off, because I'm probably going to go in and do something with hardware or leave the room for an indefinite period of time.

That said, I have XP set to interpret the (physical) power button as a command to hibernate (zero power), and my Mac takes it to go into sleep mode (in part because it doesn't do hibernate, in part because I use it so much). Programmability is a good thing, but clear labelling and defaults are even better.

The other reason is that this is a next-gen OS. How long does Fedora Core 5 take to install vs. Redhat 7? Windows XP vs. Windows 95?

Next gen doesn't have to mean bloat. In the time I've been editing this message, I installed and tested Arch Gimmick and Ubuntu Dapper Drake on the machine sitting right next to me. If Vista or any other Windows allowed you not to install things you don't want or need, this wouldn't be a problem.

2. Price

Windows 98 SE OEM was $100 in its day. Let's consider that a baseline. With the investment costs of Vista, we can be assured it will be expensive -- expensive enough that the same amount of cash could buy something that didn't warrant so much "whining." And the point is on the step-up versions, which is absolutely correct. The difference between Home and Professional is $100 for IIS and some basic security. I don't like where that's heading with their new versioning scheme.

I don't see any XP users being offered new features that were not present in XP saying "I don't like this, OS X is more elegant". Those users are already OS X users.

Exactly. I'm an OS X user (+Linux, Solaris, BeOS, QNX, BSD, Plan9, everything I can get my hands on), and I have to use Windows to get anything out of my considerable investment in games. It's hard to use it without noticing areas that are much less tedious and annoying on the computer in the next room. A lot more people are being exposed to the competition these days, and they're not going to like the shortcomings of what they bought. So the loss of elegance, in authentication, for instance, is definitely going to be something I'm not going to like about Vista. Probably #1.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Qualms with the article
by Tom K on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Qualms with the article"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

You have some good points.

He didn't say technological level. If I remember correctly, the word was features. What use does Aero Glass provide that Quartz doesn't already do on a Rage 128? I've got bilinear scaling, anti-aliasing, transparency, and Exposť with 16MB of video RAM. The rest is just special effects.

Do yourself the justice of actually going out and research Aero. This topic has been covered more than once on OSNews alone.

And trust me ... there's relatively nothing special that Quartz does on a Rage 128. :-) Where's my mouse pointer shadow, for one?

Users are quick to dismiss because Windows is quick to provide. This will only train people to take even less notice of what the dialogs are saying, if that's possible. When the dialogs come so frequently that most of them aren't worth reading, there becomes no visual difference between "I'm going to do what you just explicitly told me to do." and "A hacker is using your computer to trade illegal files and steal your credit card." Not to mention that Microsoft has a history of using messages that fall on the extremes, either so technical that only the programmer would get it or so oversimplified it's not even true.

The user is prompted for the first time only when running a certain application. However, I'd like to hear your thoughts on how to properly implement this so as to keep users safe from themselves ...

And what right does Microsoft have to force the user to do something? When I turn the computer on, I generally have some vague notion of what it is I want to do, and I can honestly say answering needless dialogs has never been it. A good operating system gets out of the way, but it appears Vista is specifically designed to get in the way.

I would hope that most users would be thankful for Microsoft forcing a choice on them if the operation about to happen could be potentially dangerous not only to the system but to the user's data. When you get that dialog, you know something is up, and you better damned well know what the implications are if you brush it off.

Most virus/spyware infections are the fault of the user alone. Microsoft knows this.

People who want startup to be instant will take the initiative to find the feature.

Are you serious? You can't be serious.

Most users don't even know about all of the built-in features of their hardware, let alone having the initiative to hunt around in system control panels looking for a low-power sleep option.

Everyone else wants to keep any electricity from being spent on an appliance that's not doing anything. I don't keep my toaster preheated all day, and most people wouldn't want their computer at the ready 24/7, no matter how low a non-zero number the wattage is.

And yet VCRs, DVD players, stereos, and a whole ton of other things are constantly in a state of "preparedness". Most people I know leave their computers on for most of the day, so clearly power concerns aren't that great (though they should be). Any modern PC that supports S3 will probably draw no more than 10-15W when in standby, and that number will only go down as the industry continues to place more weight on power consumption.

But that's not my problem with it. Labelling a sleep button with the traditional 1/0 symbol is mislabelling the button. It's lying to the user. When I hit a power toggle, I want power off, because I'm probably going to go in and do something with hardware or leave the room for an indefinite period of time.

Indeed. I'm in favour of changing the icon to reflect the function in a truer sense.

Next gen doesn't have to mean bloat.

I didn't say it did. Next-gen generally means more features/more complex systems, though. If you can figure out how to turn GDI+ into Aero WITHOUT increasing the total size of the binary code, I'll give you a MacBook Pro. :-P

In the time I've been editing this message, I installed and tested Arch Gimmick and Ubuntu Dapper Drake on the machine sitting right next to me. If Vista or any other Windows allowed you not to install things you don't want or need, this wouldn't be a problem.

You complain about bloat, and then you mention Ubuntu ... tsk tsk.

Windows 98 SE OEM was $100 in its day. Let's consider that a baseline. With the investment costs of Vista, we can be assured it will be expensive -- expensive enough that the same amount of cash could buy something that didn't warrant so much "whining." And the point is on the step-up versions, which is absolutely correct. The difference between Home and Professional is $100 for IIS and some basic security. I don't like where that's heading with their new versioning scheme.

No one can say anything about Vista pricing just yet. The most basic version could be sold for $79.99, or $129.99. We don't know. Wait and see.

Exactly. I'm an OS X user (+Linux, Solaris, BeOS, QNX, BSD, Plan9, everything I can get my hands on), and I have to use Windows to get anything out of my considerable investment in games. It's hard to use it without noticing areas that are much less tedious and annoying on the computer in the next room. A lot more people are being exposed to the competition these days, and they're not going to like the shortcomings of what they bought. So the loss of elegance, in authentication, for instance, is definitely going to be something I'm not going to like about Vista. Probably #1.

You're missing the point ... most users upgrading to Vista will be coming from 2K/XP. Any way you look at it, Vista is a huge improvement over these previous two OSes. Obviously OS X users like you and I are not going to "upgrade" to Vista.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Qualms with the article
by n4cer on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 00:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Qualms with the article"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows 98 SE OEM was $100 in its day. Let's consider that a baseline. With the investment costs of Vista, we can be assured it will be expensive -- expensive enough that the same amount of cash could buy something that didn't warrant so much "whining." And the point is on the step-up versions, which is absolutely correct. The difference between Home and Professional is $100 for IIS and some basic security. I don't like where that's heading with their new versioning scheme.

XP Home is $90 OEM and includes more functionality than 98SE. XP Pro also includes domain/group policy support, Remote Desktop server support, and more. Until MS announces pricing, you have no idea what Vista will cost. Also, IIS is included in the Home SKUs in Vista.

Edited 2006-06-03 00:34

Reply Score: 1

Compatible?
by KenJackson on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 13:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Qualms with the article"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

I have to use Windows to get anything out of my considerable investment in games.

Sorry for going a little OT, but how many of your games still don't work correctly under Wine?

My concern with Vista is seeing if the API changes in a way that make new apps not work under Wine. So the author's comment about no new features beyond XP sounds good to me.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Qualms with the article
by junior on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 12:43 UTC in reply to "Qualms with the article"
junior Member since:
2005-07-07

"Next-gen features (Aero) require next-gen hardware. He's complaining that his laptop with a 64 MB X300 isn't enough to run Aero at its highest eye-candy levels ... well boo-hoo."

Since a 64 MB X300 runs demanding 3D games with ease, but isn't adequate in running Aero to the fullest, we can safely assume that Aero is an inefficient hog. But hey, don't let that get in the way of trivializing complaints about Aero.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Qualms with the article
by Tom K on Tue 6th Jun 2006 03:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Qualms with the article"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Indeed. 10 FPS on a typical DX9 benchmark at 10x7, and 6 FPS in Doom 3 at 10x7 really does qualify as "with ease".

Aero = heavy DX9 shader usage.

Don't bring your ignorance into the debate. X300s are weaksauce.

Reply Score: 1

Business Users
by DrillSgt on Fri 2nd Jun 2006 22:05 UTC
DrillSgt
Member since:
2005-12-02

For the most part the "Business User" should see these IMO. Unless you are IT Staff, you should not have the rights to install software on the machine, and these dialogs will make that clear. There are too many of them, but as long as MS makes some of them go away, I find them to not be an issue personally.

Reply Score: 1

junior Member since:
2005-07-07

"That is why it makes me mad that almost everyone on here has an agenda to put down Microsoft or Vista because they try to find every little fault."

That's what makes you mad? LOL. You better shut up about kids living in their parents basements.


"I don't mind linux or MacOS, its the users I could do without. It's not like they are educated either, they are filled to the brim with a ton of ignorance."

Of course. Everybody knows that windows users are the brightest crayons in the box.

Reply Score: 1

KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

No matter how awesome Vista is, it still will be put down to death by ignorant users from the OS X or Linux crowds.

There is truth in this statement. But the users that do the putting down are likely not ignorant, but burned. I absolutely loved MS-DOS when others were defending CP/M, and became quite a Windows fan when Win95 came out. I even hated the Mac in those days.

But like me, the detractors you reference probably got burned by many Windows issues. You buy an upgrade to Windows at full price only to realize your PC now runs too slow or your hard disk is now full, so you buy a new PC which includes payment for yet another copy of the new version of Windows. Plus you then have to shell out for a new copy of Word. Or you lose all the data on your hard drive to a virus and realize that for all practical purposes only Windows has viruses.

The automatic criticism of Windows Vista probably results in, as you say, a very unfair comparision, but it's probably due to expectations based on bad experiences.

Referring to GNU/Linux as a patch up lack of standards is crazy. There are two kinds of "standards" in the computer world: those sactioned by standards bodies like the IETF, ISO and IEEE, and de facto standards implemented by big companies like Microsoft. I find that the Linux world is constantly striving toward better implementation of both kinds of standards.

Reply Score: 1

There is still another problem
by hraq on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 01:10 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

Vista is not yet a product.

Reply Score: 0

And Windows Explorer?
by whitespiral on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 02:02 UTC
whitespiral
Member since:
2005-08-04

I have yet to see a preview of the new file manager. Will it let us open new tabs to browse our files, or let us change the background texture, like Konqueror? Windows Explorer is joke. And the media keeping their mouths shut makes me believe something's rotten in Denmark.

Reply Score: 1

And what about DRM?
by whitespiral on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 02:05 UTC
whitespiral
Member since:
2005-08-04

I'm pretty sure that would be on my top 20 list.

Reply Score: 2

MS Vista
by poohgee on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 02:18 UTC
poohgee
Member since:
2005-08-13

Looong Windows review seems to result in a pro Windows user base on here - only the hardcore reads all 18 pages ;)

To me - good review .

It didn't seem whiney at all - he actually praised Vista for running nicely with 64MB of graphics memory AFAIK.

Most of the points mentioned seem to be things that one can just easily adapt to - some seemed more difficult to get used to.

There was no mention of DRM technology which IMO would be interesting.

The greatness of OSes chart at the start IMO was rubbish - it reads like a chart of "How much eye candy is included in the default" - not - "usability & quality" .

GNOME Linux is IMO as usable as OSX & better than Windows XP usability.
It makes no sense for Windows 98 to me so much below Win-Vista or especially XP.
Win98's interface is not very different from XP.
For him to throw in a chart covering many different OSes Id expect him to explain & justify it instead of thrusting in onto the reader as a fact of some kind .

The second interesting point to me was that of the different capabilities of the different versions which seemed a bit strange to me :

1.Businesses are not supposed to have Media Center access - makes no sense to me - are they supposed to buy a dedicated system ?
2.Businesses wont be able to make DVD's - Why ?
3.Home users do not have build in fax (hasnt that died out ?) & scan ability .
4.Network access protection not for home users ? Firewall or what ?
5. Smart cards not for home users ?
6. No domain join for Win Server - what does this mean for home networking ?
7. No dual-CPU systems for home users - push to Ultimate ;) for gamers & high end users



Okay there is a 3rd thing : The moaning about making the "real" access to the shutdown menu difficult - great decision IMO - I dont see the problem at all.

Reply Score: 1

RE: MS Vista
by n4cer on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 05:22 UTC in reply to "MS Vista"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

1.Businesses are not supposed to have Media Center access - makes no sense to me - are they supposed to buy a dedicated system ?

Businesses wanting MCE would choose Ultimate. The average business desktop user has no need for MCE.

2.Businesses wont be able to make DVD's - Why ?

This refers to Windows DVD Maker, an application which is targeted at home users. Businesses still get integrated data DVD burning.


3.Home users do not have build in fax (hasnt that died out ?) & scan ability .

This refers to Windows Fax & Scan (an application). Users can still fax via the included fax driver and scan using OEM software.

4.Network access protection not for home users ? Firewall or what ?

IIRC, NAP is only useful if you're on a domain (e.g., for quarentining systems from the larger network based on enterprise policy). Since the Home SKUs can't join a domain, they don't need NAP. Firewalls are included in the Home SKUs.

5. Smart cards not for home users ?
It doesn't say smart card support. It says integrated management. Vista SKUs capable of joining a domain have built-in management tools for smartcards such as password reset and reissue features.

6. No domain join for Win Server - what does this mean for home networking ?

Home networks don't use domains. They use workgroups. Home users in need of a domain are a special case and should use a non-Home SKU.

7. No dual-CPU systems for home users - push to Ultimate ;) for gamers & high end users

Most home computers don't have multiple CPUs. Though there is a limit of one physical CPU in Home SKUs (not new), they can use as many real cores and/or virtual (e.g., hyperthreading) cores as you can fit on the CPU.

Reply Score: 1

Obvious,
by Matt24 on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 05:14 UTC
Matt24
Member since:
2005-07-23

he has seen too much of OSX, is it then possible to give a good review on Vista?

Edited 2006-06-03 05:21

Reply Score: 1

answr
by netpython on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 05:43 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

The other reason is that this is a next-gen OS. How long does Fedora Core 5 take to install vs. Redhat 7? Windows XP vs. Windows 95?

It takes FC5 20 mins to do a full (everything) install on my system,configuration,etc incl.

Reply Score: 1

nagware
by Mellin on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 09:09 UTC
Mellin
Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows vista is going to be nagware ?

Reply Score: 3

Laptops
by segedunum on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 13:52 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Getting Vista on a laptop is going to be an impossibility unless all the graphic features are turned off. Even then, to support Vista adequately and to get one of those stickers a machine is going to need to have a serious mobile graphics card in it.

Reply Score: 1

Screenshots tell it all
by rayiner on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 16:05 UTC
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

What is this abomination? http://www.computerworld.com/html/collateral/msvistatour/images/01_...

1) So much wasted space. What is the point of that giant bar at the bottom with only an icon and some status text on it? Why does your network manager need an explanatory text box on it?

2) So many things to click! Instead of grouping things into a few key regions (window bar, menu bar, toolbar, content area), they've spread important things around the whole window.

3) Where the hell is the menu bar anyway?

4) Why are there category tabs at the top of the icon area, when it isn't a list view and isn't displaying the information listed in three of the four categories?

5) Don't even get me started on the sidebar. Apple tucks Dashboard away conveniently behind a hotkey, and Microsof takes up a good amount of your horizontal space for it?

How about this: http://www.computerworld.com/html/collateral/msvistatour/images/18a...

How obtuse is that "explanatory text"?

1) Does the user really need to know what "User Account Control" is and what it does?

2) "If you started this action, please continue". Think of how stupid this sounds to the user in the average case. They're thinking "of course I started this action, who else would?" For this statement to make sense, you have to know that other processes on the system might initiate such actions without your intervention, but that's really a programmers way of thinking about it.

3) What is the disembodied "Troubleshoot Display Adapter..." text. I suppose I could infer that the first line is the module being activated, and the second is the publisher of the module, but should I have to guess?

4) Is there really a good reason to split this over multiple dialogs? Presumably, you'll be prompted for your password next (the dialog is positively useless otherwise!).

The most sensical way to organize this dialog would've been the simplest:

"Windows needs your permission to continue."

""Troubleshoot Display Adapter" needs your system password to perform the desired action".

- Password box -

Then this: http://www.computerworld.com/html/collateral/msvistatour/images/14a...

What the hell is this? What the hell is with all the text spread out everywhere in the window? I don't even know how to critique tihs, because I'm not even really sure what its doing!

I'm too depressed to continue. My only other general point is why is there so much goddamn text? Is somebody at Microsoft trying to show off how good their writing skills are? It's a computer user interface, not a phd thesis! Shit, airplane cockpits have less explanatory text than this...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Screenshots tell it all
by segedunum on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 17:45 UTC in reply to "Screenshots tell it all"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You've raised a number of good points there, many of which I thought when I saw those screenshots but couldn't be bothered to write them down. Surely Microsoft have finalised the UI and know pretty much how it should look and be structured now they're in the beta phase?

Alas, no. Microsoft have got a huge complex about Mac OS X (and some Linux desktop stuff) and have thrown a number of UI elements and features together, hoping that if they throw the jigsaw pieces high enough then they will all land in exactly the right places.

5) Don't even get me started on the sidebar. Apple tucks Dashboard away conveniently behind a hotkey, and Microsof takes up a good amount of your horizontal space for it?

Cynically, I would say that Microsoft are trying to get on the side of hardware vendors here in order to try and get you to buy widescreen monitors you don't need.

Reply Score: 1

hmmmm
by re_re on Sat 3rd Jun 2006 17:21 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

perhaps Microsoft should give a few options upon first boot of your new vista powered computer

1.Basic user (recommended, secure by default)
2.Secure (more difficult but very secure)
3.Advanced user (I can secure the system myself, may not be supported.)

In this way you are giving a a simple option to the user to determine their ease of use and level of security. 90% of people will choose the basic route, but it gives others who know what they are doing the opportunity to run the system the way they want to run it.

Edited 2006-06-03 17:27

Reply Score: 1

Question?
by chlordane on Sun 4th Jun 2006 02:00 UTC
chlordane
Member since:
2006-05-11

Would NASA use Windows on any thing Mission Critical....?

I wonder....

Reply Score: 1

RE: Question?
by sappyvcv on Sun 4th Jun 2006 14:33 UTC in reply to "Question?"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

They wouldn't use OSX or Linux either.

What is your point?

Reply Score: 1