Two negative reviews of Vista RC1. First off, CRN says: "Microsoft is making its first Vista release candidate and pricing information more broadly available to partners and consumers this week. Solution providers who have seen it say it's not yet ready for prime time." Our favourite 
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-11-23
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-11-10
This particular boat however has so much steam power behind it (marketing), that even with a giant hole in it, it still keeps afloat by sticking it's nose in the air and hopping along the water.
It would take something truley catastrophic to sink Windows, something like a flaw so bad it caused a fortune 500 company to go under.
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:2005-07-06
It would take something truley catastrophic to sink Windows, something like a flaw so bad it caused a fortune 500 company to go under.
emmmm why ?
if you have ever read the EULA, Microsoft is exempt from blame no matter what, even if their software caused the end of the world.
It was YOUR choice to install it.
Microsoft has great lawyers/
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-11-13
Commandment #1: Thou shalt clean install every new version of Windows. Thou shalt not upgrade a previous one.
Ok, so if it's not ready, it's not ready. But I hope they're not judging its readiness on how well it installs over XP. Nobody should EVER attempt to do this. Windows does have its strenghts, but this is not one of them 
If you want to update your OS for 10 years straight without every re-installing it, don't use Windows.
Edit: I suppose the title of my post should be 'The 10 Commandments of Windows stability'
Edited 2006-09-06 18:39
Member since:2005-12-14
Member since:2006-06-26
Member since:2005-08-26
Member since:2005-11-10
Right here http://www.winhistory.de/more/386/update/updatem.htm execept this is from DOS5 to XP
Member since:2006-05-21
"You know, I just wonder if anyone has ever attempted to upgrade each OS from Windows 3.11 to Windows XP. It might be easier to get Windows 95 to run on today's computers than 3.11 but it would be interesting to see if you could do it and have a working system."
Some guy posted this here a few days ago in another Vista story... An upgrade marathon: all the way from MSDOS 5 + Windows 1.0 to Winxp..
http://www.winhistory.de/more/386/update/updatem.htm
Member since:2005-11-13
You know, I just wonder if anyone has ever attempted to upgrade each OS from Windows 3.11 to Windows XP. It might be easier to get Windows 95 to run on today's computers than 3.11 but it would be interesting to see if you could do it and have a working system.
Actually, somebody in a recent thread posted a link where somebody had upgraded from like DOS all the way to WinXP. Things got messy in a hurry
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-03-12
That's a consequence of the quick-and-dirty nature of RPMs. It allows for very fast development cycles, which leads to beautiful base installs, but changing it from there is not easy. This is why they keep their repositories so separate -- they have to be hand-tweaked to ensure stability. Debian and Gentoo are more designed to be upgraded, handling dependencies and vital configuration changes automatically.
Member since:2005-09-02
Well, maybe so, but isn't this the method that a large number of users will employ to get Vista up and running? That is to say, won't this be the default method of installing Vista for users who aren't buying a new PC with Vista preloaded? This being the case, shouldn't the upgrade process go smoooth-ly (in the words of Zim)? It seems pretty important that it does. I know that upgrading is tricky, and that when custom apps are installed this is always going to cause problems, but I would still have expected this to be a major focus for Microsoft, so as to ensure that as few problems were encountered, for as few users, as possible.
By the by, although it may be an apples-oranges comparison, I'd like to observe that upgrading is something that Ubuntu tends to do very well. I can't speak for special cases of funky software being installed, since I generally only use stuff from the Ubuntu repositories, but I upgraded from Warty to Hoary, from Hoary to Breezy, and from Breezy to Dapper, without ever reinstalling, and without any problems that I remember. I'm sure some other people will not have had such an easy time, but in my experience Ubuntu far outpaces Windows in the stability of the upgrade process (I recently reinstalled upgrading to Edgy, but this is because I changed CPU arches). Edgy, incidentally, has been very solid so far and I really like it.
I mention Ubuntu because I see it in direct competition with Windows---and if it is doing something better than Windows is, then Microsoft should take note. At the moment, I cannot see any reason to use Vista; compared to Ubuntu, it really looks a bit low-class---especially given the price difference!
Ymmv of course (:
Member since:2005-08-06
Member since:2006-04-21
Member since:2005-09-02
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2005-11-13
Well, maybe so, but isn't this the method that a large number of users will employ to get Vista up and running? That is to say, won't this be the default method of installing Vista for users who aren't buying a new PC with Vista preloaded?
Yes, unfortunately. Which underscores the point that 98% of people having problems with Windows don't know how to run it properly. Of course, this is no fault of their own .. these people are probably better off on Macs.
but I would still have expected this to be a major focus for Microsoft, so as to ensure that as few problems were encountered, for as few users, as possible.
With XP, I think there's only so far you can go .. I mean, God himself probably couldn't make the upgrade process go smoothly for everyone
At the moment, I cannot see any reason to use Vista; compared to Ubuntu, it really looks a bit low-class---especially given the price difference!
It really depends on what you use computers for. For example, if you are a professional who uses computers to make music for a living, then any flavor of Linux doesn't make a whole lot sense. At least, not compared to Windows or OSX. There are some other things where this is true as well.
Member since:2005-11-12
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-09-16
It is interesting to read "Microsoft has never been very good at consistency" given the recurring discussions about Microsoft as a company being too big.
Of course there is no consistency: there are seemingly too many disjoint teams and developers within MS.
Microsoft is incapable of even following it's own UI design guidelines.
Member since:2005-09-02
Does Microsoft have a HIG? This is one of the things I find really annoying about Windows: everything looks different. IE, Office, Explorer, WMP, MSN Messenger...they all have completely different UIs. If hundreds and even thousands of independent developers around the world can design consistent-looking interfaces for their own, independent applications for Gnome (or KDE, if that's your thing), then why can't a handful of developers all working for the same company design applications in a similar way?
Even the more esoteric and odd Gnome applications look consistent with the general environment because, even if their widget placement and so on is a bit bung, they still use the same GTK widgets, colors, etc. The same certainly can't be said of Microsoft applications (not to mention some of the pure crap, produced by other companies, that seem to pose as media players etc). Office can't even be consistent about which scrollbar to display, for crying out loud---in my message pane, it has the ugly default Windows 2000 scrollbar, while in the preview pane it has the blue WinXP one! What the...?
Consistency is important---not just for new users, but also for more experienced ones. Users /should/ have an expectation that programs will all look and behave similarly; and it's natural that they should find it frustrating when this doesn't happen. And it's not just a useability thing; it's a general perception issue also. Applications that can't seem to get something as basic as how to display scrollbars right just /feel/ flaky. They're not as nice to use. It might sound silly, but I don't think it is. I want an enjoyable user experience. That is the one, basic reasons that I don't use Windows at home. So I really wonder if Microsoft has a HIG---and if so, why they aren't following it.
Edited 2006-09-06 23:07
Member since:2005-07-06
Does Microsoft have a HIG? This is one of the things I find really annoying about Windows: everything looks different. IE, Office, Explorer, WMP, MSN Messenger...they all have completely different UIs. If hundreds and even thousands of independent developers around the world can design consistent-looking interfaces for their own, independent applications for Gnome (or KDE, if that's your thing), then why can't a handful of developers all working for the same company design applications in a similar way?
Yes, Windows has a HIG, but as the name implies it's just a guideline. It isn't about forcing every app to look the same. You are encouraged to follow guidelines and standards where possible, but not be boxed into them even when they hinder what you want to accomplish with your application.
Windows HIG
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dn...
Vista HIG
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/?url=/library/en-us/UxGuide/UXGui...
Member since:2005-07-07
A lot of people claims that Apples "Mail" application does not adhere to their HIG. And while both Gnome and KDE are getting much better, there are still a few rough edges.
This does not excuse Microsoft though. A consistent user interface is extremely important for new users, and it shouldn't be that hard to follow.
Member since:
2005-12-18
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2006-04-21
Member since:
2006-06-01
Member since:
2005-07-06
So Mr. Thurrot considers Vista to be...stunningly competent?
(and why is something inconsistent and unpolished 'competent', while something consistent and polished is 'wonderful'? Surely consistency and polish constitute competency, and invention and progress constitute wonderfulness or the lack of it...)
Member since:
2005-07-06
I agree, absolutely. RC1 is only something you can test, forget about *using* it. It crashes every few minutes, there are zero compatible applications...
This could have really been the time for Linux or for OS X to take advantage of the situation.
Alas I don't see that happening: Linux because of all the reasons which have been discussed so many times, the main one possibly being its fragmentation.
As to OS X, Apple should license it to Dell, HP...do you see that happening?
Member since:2006-04-21
Sigh...
"This could have really been the time for Dell or HP to take advantage of the situation. Alas I don't see that happening: because of all the reasons which have been discussed so many times, the main one possibly being fragmentation."
You see the flaw in the argument?
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-04-21
Member since:2005-06-29
not replying to you...
I'm replying to twenex...hence I'm one level under him, two levels under you
Or another way of seeing it is to look at the actual Subject...twenex is RE, I am RE[2], you are RE[3] and now this response is RE[4]...
If i was responding to you it would have been RE as well...not RE[2]...
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-04-21
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:
2006-07-04
I don't think any OS is ready for prime time until the follow-up release (Win3.1, Mac OS 7.1, NT 3.51, Mac OSX 10.1 (actually 10.2)), so Vista won't be "complete" until SP1. And that would be the case regardless of when Vista is actually released; even if Microsoft were to wait 10 years to perfect Vista, it would still require SP1 to be complete. That's just the way it is with new OSes; they need to go through general release followed by SP1 to be fully done.
I think this thread's summary mischaractarized Thurott's "The Dark Side of Vista RC1" as "the 2nd Part" of his review. That article is well less than 1/4th of the review; and it's not even part 2, of the review, it's actually part 4 (actually, it's not even officially "part 4", it's the second of two follow-up pieces published after the offical parts 1 and 2). That piece is a list of UI inconsistencies and other problems (some of which I see as real problems) that he's calling out in an attempt to get them "fixed" for RTM (I hope MS actually ignores some of his issues since I don't agree that they are real issues and his proposed "solutions" are worse, but others MS definitely should fix).
Here are links to the more substantial parts of Thurott's review:
Part 1:
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_rc1.asp
Part 2 - Compatibility:
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_rc1_02.asp
5 Great Features in Vista RC1
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_rc1_best.asp
The Dark Side of Windows Vista RC1
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_rc1_worst.asp
As for the other article, I read about it on slashdot earlier, and it's just a few brief vague anectdotes, one of which involves how Vista runs on MacBook (actually, it gets praise in that scneario).
But I still don't expect Vista to be "complete" until SP1, and that would be the case regardless of when it's released.
But make no mistake, Vista is not the disaster that was Beta2 and RTM won't be the disaster that MS haters hoped that it would be. It'll be very usable, along the lines of the first releases of Win3x, XP, OSX, etc.
Edited 2006-09-06 20:16
Member since:2005-07-07
I don't think any OS is ready for prime time until the follow-up release (Win3.1, Mac OS 7.1, NT 3.51, Mac OSX 10.1 (actually 10.2)), so Vista won't be "complete" until SP1. And that would be the case regardless of when Vista is actually released; even if Microsoft were to wait 10 years to perfect Vista, it would still require SP1 to be complete. That's just the way it is with new OSes; they need to go through general release followed by SP1 to be fully done.
I notice you didn't mention any Linux distributions, and with good reason. They don't suffer from this problem. Unfortunately, in the proprietary world a first release of an OS is still beta, although they won't tell you that, and all of the early adopters are beta testers. The worst thing I've seen with a Linux distro is a release with a serious bug, that is then fixed hours later. Not the best scenario but no software is perfect.
It'll be very usable, along the lines of the first releases of Win3x, XP, OSX, etc.
Yikes! That is what I am afraid of.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-07
When was the last time windows update left you with a command shell? Never?? Ubuntu FTL!
I'd rather have that then deal with Windows Update introducing new, more serious bugs than the ones it is supposed to fix, or installing spyware, or changing a license via upgrade. Worse yet, some people have been left with completely unusable systems when Windows Update incorrectly determines that their system is not genuine.
Member since:
2006-08-09
Some people can't wait for the Microsoft empire to collapse. Why be so impatient? Windows won't be around for ever.
Even the Romans and the Babylonians succumbed in the end. Until the same happens to our Redmond friends, it hardly matters for non-Windows users to discuss if Vista is great, reasonable, or disappointed, does it? It'll make money anyway.
For critics there's already a number of alternative OSes available, so I guess there's nothing to complain about.
And monopolies are fought in court, not on osnews.com.
;)
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:
2005-07-06
I think this is getting out of hand. to many people are like armchair quarterbacks. but had never worked in an enterprise shop. or even migrated a single company at the OS level. let me tell you, CxO's hate zelots. of any OS becuase they think it clouds your judgement. and there right:
Member since:2006-04-21
Member since:
2006-02-20
Is it just me or is the Windows UI getting more f--ked up with every release? I mean, come on! Some Microsoft applications have menues, some have toolbars. In some applications, the toolbar is below the menubar. In other, the toolbar is above the menubar. In some applications, the toolbar and the menubar are merged. But it comes worse: some apps even have a toolbar in the window decoration, while other apps have neither toolbar nor menubar. And don't forget that the new Office suite is going to introduce something to to play with; the ribbon!
And that's just the applications direcly from Microsoft. Don't even think about the 3rd party apps. Can you say "Movie Player?"
This is ridiculus. I don't know what Microsoft did in the last five years, but they obviously didn't their job. This system is gonna drive people crazy.
If Microsoft wants to keep the lead in the operating system busines, they will have to come up with something sane. Soon. Apple's OS X is getting more and more polished with every new release, the Linux distrubutors finally are getting somewhat user-friendly. Apple has interface guidlines and it shows. Almost all OS X applications behave in a somewhat consistent manner. GNOME has it's HIG, and there are just a few applications that (while using GNOME libraries) don't follow it.
This Windows Vista isn't going to cut it. Microsoft will have to go back to the drawing board and finaly deliver something proper. If that means a whole new foundation for their Windows - fine! Microsoft should drop all the legacy crap (WFC anyone? Win16?) and deliver a whole new API, just as Apple did with OS X.
Windows Vista is one giant humpback whale of legacy and backward compatibility. And it shows, dammit.
Edited 2006-09-06 23:12
Member since:2005-07-06
This Windows Vista isn't going to cut it. Microsoft will have to go back to the drawing board and finaly deliver something proper. If that means a whole new foundation for their Windows - fine! Microsoft should drop all the legacy crap (WFC anyone? Win16?) and deliver a whole new API, just as Apple did with OS X.
You should really do some research.
Win16 has been dropped.
All major parts of the OS have received either from-scratch rewrites or significant modifications to existing code.
The new API is .NET 3.0 aka WinFX.
Member since:2006-01-06
>You should really do some research.
>Win16 has been dropped.
>All major parts of the OS have received either
>from-scratch rewrites or significant modifications to
>existing code.
>The new API is .NET 3.0 aka WinFX.
Win16 support has only been dropped in the 64-bit editions.
The re-written components still maintain compatability with their preduccessors.
.Net 3.0 (==.Net 2.0 + WinFX) is just a fancy OO wrapper on top of Win32.
Member since:
2005-07-06
uh.. no? I've had pre-rc1 build 5536 installed since it came out and it hasnt once crashed. and this is with fairly heavy use, including games. im running it on a p4 2.8/1gb ram/nvidia 6200. it flies.
but i dont plan on using it for much longer. the gui annoys me but it is NOT crashy.
Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows NT Windows CE)
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2006-04-21
Member since:
2006-06-28
Oh hey, it's this article again. There's one of these ("Vista's not ready") every 3 days it seems, complete with the trollish anti-Vista/anti-MS comments (like the "Very heavy case of DejaVu..." above me). At least this article doesn't contain links to Z-list bloggers complaining about why RC1 isn't ready for RTM.
I'm sorry, but people who aren't self-important pundits, self-important Linux and Mac zealots, and people *who have actually tried* Vista RC1 have come out with quite a positive experience about Vista.
Member since:
2005-07-12
Decent article, but I must object to one of the points the author makes. He suggests Apple's conversion to 64-bit was done right, while Microsoft is fouling it up.
So far, only libSystem and the kernel in OS X are 64-bit. All other APIs are 32-bit. XP is a different situation, with all the APIs being 64-bit capable.
I can say nothing about hardware compatibility in Tiger, but all my hardware has 64-bit drivers available, though not included (But, being a Windows user, that's normal for me)
As for software compatibility, most (but not all) of my games work properly, as do my other 32-bit apps. The only major issue is a lack of 64-bit browser plugins, but a 64-bit web browser isn't exacly neccessary.
Member since:
2005-08-26
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:
2005-08-18
