Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Feb 2007 21:29 UTC, submitted by m_yates
Windows "There's lots to like in the newest version of Windows. Vista's look is stunning, the OS should be more secure, and finding things is often easier. But Windows wouldn't be Windows without those aspects, big and small, that just drive you nuts with frustration. Here's our list of Vista features that just make us wonder, 'What were they thinking?'"
Order by: Score:
oh no more vista!
by batdan on Tue 20th Feb 2007 21:44 UTC
batdan
Member since:
2007-01-12

yet another thing telling me not to buy vista (not that I any special plans to).

It just seems to be fashionable to write negative stuff about Vista at the moment.

The world seems to have gone vista bashing mad.

Hey ho hum.....

Reply Score: 5

RE: oh no more vista!
by fretinator on Tue 20th Feb 2007 21:55 UTC in reply to "oh no more vista!"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

I disagree.

This is not another "Vista Sux" article. The authors are clear at the beginning that there are a lot features in Vista to like, and the authors seems to me to be highly-savvy Windows users. I took the article to be just another tips 'n tricks article for power users, with a few gripes about price and DRM thrown in.

This article is written by Windows users for Windows users. Most of the "Vista Sux" articles are written by Linux/Mac users for other Linux/Mac users so they can all smile smugly. This is not what I see in this article.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: oh no more vista!
by batdan on Tue 20th Feb 2007 22:04 UTC in reply to "RE: oh no more vista!"
batdan Member since:
2007-01-12

fair point. I have to admit i only glanced at the article and was a little too quick to dismiss it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: oh no more vista!
by cromo on Tue 20th Feb 2007 22:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: oh no more vista!"
cromo Member since:
2006-06-17

Well, you've just shown yourself how flamewars work.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: oh no more vista!
by fretinator on Tue 20th Feb 2007 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: oh no more vista!"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Except he admitted he made a mistake, which many people won't do.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: oh no more vista!
by cromo on Tue 20th Feb 2007 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: oh no more vista!"
cromo Member since:
2006-06-17

Only because your answer was decent enough. Someone else could give some harsh answer before you did, and all the flamewar would start.

Edited 2007-02-20 22:27

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: oh no more vista!
by Luis on Tue 20th Feb 2007 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE: oh no more vista!"
Luis Member since:
2006-04-28

Yes, I agree. It's an article written by Windows user for Windows users. But the conclusions are quite the same:

- Only Vista Ultimate is a real upgrade. And it's far too expensive: $400 in the USA, $780 (!) in the EU (with that price I guess they assume they're not going to sell many -if any at all- original boxed copies in the EU).

- Pros: Nice interface. Desktop search. Better security (?)

- Cons: Too many annoyances (UAC and Graphic cards drivers being the most important).

I guess Mac/Linux users aren't going to switch to Windows Vista. But are Windows users going to upgrade to it? Looks to me like only uninformed ones will upgrade (to be disappointed), but the rest will wait quite a bit before doing it (or will even consider a switch to Mac/Linux).

Reply Score: 5

v RE[3]: oh no more vista!
by stare on Wed 21st Feb 2007 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: oh no more vista!"
RE[4]: oh no more vista!
by Headrush on Wed 21st Feb 2007 00:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: oh no more vista!"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

You on the MS payroll? ;-)

When it comes to average end users, 1 bad visual problem can easily outweigh 5 hidden improvements.

(The average user could care less about NUMA or if the networking stack was rewritten.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: oh no more vista!
by stare on Wed 21st Feb 2007 00:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: oh no more vista!"
stare Member since:
2005-07-06

You on the MS payroll? ;-)

*sigh* I wish

When it comes to average end users, 1 bad visual problem can easily outweigh 5 hidden improvements.

Sure, that's why Vista unfortunately has no real contenders (OSX is tied to specific hardware and Linux desktops is one giant visual problem)

Edited 2007-02-21 00:44

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: oh no more vista!
by Headrush on Wed 21st Feb 2007 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: oh no more vista!"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

Nobody said between different OSes. More like staying with XP or upgrading to Vista.

I guess I better not admit I have OS X running on a dual core Opteron. :-P (Yes I bought it)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: oh no, you stalled the flamewar!
by eMPee584 on Wed 21st Feb 2007 08:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: oh no more vista!"
eMPee584 Member since:
2007-01-29

You BASTARDs! ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: oh no more vista!
by lemmy on Wed 21st Feb 2007 09:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: oh no more vista!"
lemmy Member since:
2005-07-10

Sure, that's why Vista unfortunately has no real contenders (OSX is tied to specific hardware and Linux desktops is one giant visual problem)


says who?
it shows where?


bye,
[L]

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: oh no more vista!
by Darkelve on Wed 21st Feb 2007 09:38 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: oh no more vista!"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

"Sure, that's why Vista unfortunately has no real contenders (OSX is tied to specific hardware and Linux desktops is one giant visual problem)"

I want to add to that, Windows Vista is tied to specific hardware too, known as x86.

More correct would be to say, that as a consumer you have more choice among this subset of hardware. Linux supports even more hardware, e.g. you can install Debian on x86, PowerPC or you can install specialized distributions on things as diverse as iPods, Palms, PS3's, Blade Servers, etc.

Edited 2007-02-21 09:40

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: oh no more vista!
by dylansmrjones on Wed 21st Feb 2007 01:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: oh no more vista!"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It's $500 in Denmark for Vista Business according to EDBPriser.dk

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: oh no more vista!
by PowerMacX on Wed 21st Feb 2007 02:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: oh no more vista!"
PowerMacX Member since:
2005-11-06

Why not? I guess many Mac and Linux users will switch to Vista, while few Windows users will switch to Mac and nobody to Linux.

You have to remember one very important fact: most if not all Mac and Linux users are using an OS they choose to begin with. And there are no Mac or Linux users who have no experience with Windows.

"Many" switching to Windows? I doubt that. Most of the "new" Vista features have been available on OS X & Linux for some time, so basically switching would involve: Windows (which both kinds users didn't like to begin with) + features they have been using in their current OS of choice for a while + a hefty price tag.

Again, many?

With "solutions" like this to Vista's problems?
"UAC can be switched off if it annoys you."

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: oh no more vista!
by Darkelve on Wed 21st Feb 2007 08:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: oh no more vista!"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

It's sad to say this, but this article, recommending to turn off UAC, shows that the latest Apple Ad called "Security" actually has it right.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: oh no more vista!
by stare on Wed 21st Feb 2007 10:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: oh no more vista!"
stare Member since:
2005-07-06

You have to remember one very important fact: most if not all Mac and Linux users are using an OS they choose to begin with. And there are no Mac or Linux users who have no experience with Windows.

There is no evidence this two statements are true (or wrong).

"Many" switching to Windows? I doubt that. Most of the "new" Vista features have been available on OS X & Linux for some time,

In Linux some features are there, many are half-baked for a long time (such as Beagle, wireless/upnp networking), some completely missing (such as HD Video support). OSX is somewhat better, but again, it's tied to Apple's own hardware, which most users don't like or want.

so basically switching would involve: Windows (which both kinds users didn't like to begin with) + features they have been using in their current OS of choice for a while + a hefty price tag.

It would involve realization of how great and more consistent Vista is (on friends computer, for instance), knowing it cost only $200 for a whole new OS, buying (or probably downloading) and switching to it.


With "solutions" like this to Vista's problems?

That's not solution for Vista problem (because there is no problem), but for a user who is not used to non-admin running mode.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: oh no more vista!
by ignotas on Wed 21st Feb 2007 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: oh no more vista!"
ignotas Member since:
2007-02-21

"In Linux some features are there, many are half-baked for a long time (such as Beagle, wireless/upnp networking), some completely missing (such as HD Video support)." - You are completely wrong... Myth(tv) in linux supports HD Video. Probably you are confusing HDTV with MS DRM?

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: oh no more vista!
by stare on Wed 21st Feb 2007 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: oh no more vista!"
stare Member since:
2005-07-06

Myth(tv) in linux supports HD Video.

I mean protected Blu-ray/HD-DVD HD video, not just any HD mpeg-2/mpeg-4 stream (it's not that it's impossible to implement, though, if some company will create Linux software player with DRM implemented)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: oh no more vista!
by dylansmrjones on Wed 21st Feb 2007 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: oh no more vista!"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Beagle is not exactly half-baked. UPNP networking works fine. You're right about wireless networking but XP is no better in that regard.

The price is $500 in Denmark, for an inconsistent, slow and un-userfriendly system.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: oh no more vista!
by stare on Wed 21st Feb 2007 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: oh no more vista!"
stare Member since:
2005-07-06

UPNP networking works fine

I've experienced a number of issues with libupnp/ushare which I managed to fix only by digging the forums and jumping through hoops.

The price is $500 in Denmark, for an inconsistent, slow and un-userfriendly system.

Linux costs $500 in Denmark?! ;)

Qiuick google search leads to this link:
http://www.gate2prices.dk/software/software-vis.asp?Kode=S000855
If my currency converter is right, Vista Ultimate OEM is $250 in Denmark.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: oh no more vista!
by thebluesgnr on Wed 21st Feb 2007 03:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: oh no more vista!"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

"Why not? I guess many Mac and Linux users will switch to Vista, while few Windows users will switch to Mac and nobody to Linux."

Nobody, huh?

You're off by at least 20,000:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/01/30/HNpeugeotlinux_1.html

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: oh no more vista!
by Darkelve on Wed 21st Feb 2007 08:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: oh no more vista!"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

"Nobody, huh?

You're off by at least 20,000:"

Make that +50 000 Brazilians:

http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/07/02/13/1933232.shtml

And +1 for myself :p

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: oh no more vista!
by stare on Wed 21st Feb 2007 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: oh no more vista!"
stare Member since:
2005-07-06

Make that +50 000 Brazilians:

As I understand, those Brazilians were _forced_ to use Linux by goverment program. That's actually a good thing, since I believe all goverments should switch to FOSS/open standarts regardless if commercial solutions are better or worse. Hovewer that particular issue is not related to my post, because it was about which OS people would _voluntarily_ choose to switch to.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: oh no more vista!
by kaiwai on Wed 21st Feb 2007 03:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: oh no more vista!"
RE[4]: oh no more vista!
by dylansmrjones on Wed 21st Feb 2007 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: oh no more vista!"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Visual Studio 2005 is also bloated and slow and useless in reality.

The same goes for eclipse, monodevelop, Borland Delphi 2005 and whatever you can find. They simply tend to be buttslow and bloated.

Of course Borland Delphi 3 (or C++ Builder) is quite fast, but you don't want to go there ;)

Visual Studio 6 is quite fast too, but you don't wanna go there either ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: oh no more vista!
by archiesteel on Wed 21st Feb 2007 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: oh no more vista!"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

OpenOffice.org being the el-supremo example of crap-o-la software

OO.o 2.0 is a very good office suite. The only thing missing (for me) is Outline Mode, and work has started on implementing this.

And, yes, I'm a MS Word "advanced user".

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: oh no more vista!
by raver31 on Wed 21st Feb 2007 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: oh no more vista!"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh, and btw, I would move to Linux; too bad the applications I want aren't available, and the alternatives are absolutely crap; OpenOffice.org being the el-supremo example of crap-o-la software; but hey, its from Sun, bloated and slow, just like their development studio written in Java.

*****YAWN*****

Again with the same old story....

DO NOT MOAN TO US, WE KNOW AND AGREE

Start that petition !!

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: oh no more vista!
by camo r on Wed 21st Feb 2007 04:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: oh no more vista!"
camo r Member since:
2005-08-26

Blogger please, enough already. Uninformed people (according to you) would upgrade and even if disappointed will stay with it. The rest will just stay with XP and not even consider switching to *nix/mac. Period.

UAC, only annoying if you leave the full screen prompt on. Switch that off and it's not soo bad to live with.

Graphics drivers, not a problem here. Used both the windows wddm drivers and ATI's drivers. Working great.

All drivers are working great and my usual progs are buzzing along. And this is on a somewhat unsupported platform, a mac.

Call me uninformed and impressed here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: oh no more vista!
by drfelip on Wed 21st Feb 2007 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: oh no more vista!"
drfelip Member since:
2005-07-06

Even the extremelly basic Basic edition sells for 390 $. And they are surprised that Vista's sales are lower than expected? Wow...

Reply Score: 2

dear
by SK8T on Tue 20th Feb 2007 22:08 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

It's a good article.

And I still do not see the improvement compared to XP. XP is in it's best years. After two service packs the most annoying bugs are fixed. The most apps and games are running fine, and the most hardware, too.

And I also think you can turn it into a relative safe system.

And you can get IE7 and WMP11 for XP, too.

So why buy vista? For eyecandy? Or DRM? no thanks.

Edited 2007-02-20 22:16

Reply Score: 2

RE: dear
by fretinator on Tue 20th Feb 2007 22:38 UTC in reply to "dear"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, that's the point of most of the Software industry. New versions of just about any software product are a means of funding the activity of that company. Otherwise, they would have to switch to a subscription service. There really is no compelling reason to buy Vista. However, the reality is that Microsoft has to make money, so eventually XP will be deprecated and the unsupported. This is an endless game. And you have to admin, it's been 6 YEARS! Microsoft cannot afford to freely fix XP forever (just like 2000, 98, etc before).

Incidentally, even though you're not paying, this is true in the Free (libre) software world. Evetually you're current version of Linux slides into "unsupported" status and you have to make a choice - upgade or risk obsolescence. I know a company that still uses Fedora Core 1. It worked fine for them, but they eventually had to make a choice to upgrade or risk using unsupported software (no security updates for instance).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: dear
by Phloptical on Wed 21st Feb 2007 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE: dear"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

True, they have to pay the 70k employee payroll somehow.

Still, it's bogus. XP is probably a 90+% complete product at this point. It has a decent track record, more and more companies are supporting it. Few problems with older hardware. Haven't heard too much about iloveyou's and Blaster variants in the past couple of years.

Vista is a step backward just to force people to upgrade hardware needlessly. Even with UAC whining like my 3 year old, you still need to run the standard security apps as you do in XP. Integrated search can be done in XP with 3rd party software. All that fancy "flip" and ugly UI garbage can be done with more 3rd party apps, I'm sure. DX10 is really the only reason for home users to get Vista.

Fact is, this is probably the first time that Microsoft released a version of Windows and the majority of users said, "Why?"

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: dear
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 21st Feb 2007 03:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: dear"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

What makes you think you still need to use security apps? I mean, you could assume that because you've been using security apps before and they've found things, but how do you know 'a priori' that you still need that stuff?

There are lots of under-the-hood enhancements in Vista. What else is an OS really supposed to have? Remember, it's a platform for people to write software on. It won't happen immediately, but surely when Vista takes over there will be software that uses its features fully and won't run on XP. That represents progress because that software will probably be doing things in a better way:
perhaps it will use the new visuals,
perhaps it will be safer,
perhaps it will use the transactional features in the filesystem to safely modify its files without corruption,
perhaps people's problems will be solved automatically or more quickly through the new diagnostics frameworks in Vista.

But what is an OS really supposed to do? What do you expect that is not in Windows and cannot be gotten by addons? If you think of something, is it generally useful and non-conflicting with other requirements?

Reply Score: 3

Cost
by sb56637 on Tue 20th Feb 2007 22:43 UTC
sb56637
Member since:
2006-05-11

In my opinion, the pricetag is the most annoying thing about Windows Vista. Sickeningly expensive. And second on my list are the insanely high hardware requirements.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Cost
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 21st Feb 2007 03:53 UTC in reply to "Cost"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I'm tired of the hardware requirements card.

Hardware has always been getting cheaper. Why do you think that trend will suddenly stop? Why should someone write an OS for old hardware, when the old OS works just fine on that old hardware?

Vista has high requirements in the memory department, but nothing else is that surprising. On the other hand, given enough memory Vista starts up and launches applications faster than XP with the same memory. Sure, wasting cycles is bad, and I don't recommend running Vista on your PDA. But, given that Vista actually runs just as fast as XP on its target hardware and is faster at many tasks, what's your beef?

I haven't tried linux on my hardware to see how the speed compares. I'm looking forward to offloading some files and trying it out soon.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Cost
by dosuser48 on Wed 21st Feb 2007 04:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Cost"
dosuser48 Member since:
2007-02-21

Hardware may have become cheaper, but that is not the issue. I just checked laptop and desktop systems at a major brick and mortar retailer over the holiday. I have two observations.

1. Any version of Vista is a memory hog
2. Boxed copies of Vista are expensive.

On the first point; Vista Home Basic, the stripped version, was using 70 percent of the RAM (512MB) without any applications running. In other words just to run System processes, IDLE, it consumed 70 percent of the RAM. Checking out systems with 1GB RAM, it was using 48 to 51 percent of the RAM while IDLE, no applications running. So hardware is an issue, and this is with the least resource intensive version, Home Basic.

On point two; the reason the prices are higher than posters are acknowledging are the requirements to upgrade to the preferred versions of Vista. Just read the boxes in the stores, I did, and you will see there are conditions on upgrading. You almost have to go with OEM install or full install, because of the many conditions on upgrading.

Saying that RAM is inexpensive does not help, since the machines are being sold with the minimun specifications Microsoft suggests for Vista, and retailers will not add RAM without a hefty fee. Most casual users do not add components that require opening the case, and will not be aware that Vista needs 1GB to be tolerable and 2GB to work
as well as their XP systems.

Edited 2007-02-21 04:41

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Cost
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 21st Feb 2007 04:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Cost"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

1.5 GB is quite adequate for me. You're right about the lack of RAM in retail machines. But the users who buy those probably won't notice or care that things take a few seconds to launch. And once apps are up, things will be fast enough.

I agree that less than 1GB is pretty bad.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Cost
by heh heh on Wed 21st Feb 2007 06:47 UTC in reply to "Cost"
heh heh Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh cmon not everybody can afford so called cheaper hardware and why should people fill the landfills
with more perfectly operating older computers to make Microsoft richer. a lot of us will stay with xp or older
until a new computer is needed. vista speed HA this 98e
is much faster on lesser hardware.

Reply Score: 1

Explorer and Preview Thumbnails
by Finchwizard on Tue 20th Feb 2007 22:50 UTC
Finchwizard
Member since:
2006-02-01

The thing that drives me absolutely insane.

Is the new Explorer layout, I just can't stand it, it seems to take me a little longer to get to places I want, and I can't display the icons the same as XP, they are either too big, or too small, and not lined up like previous versions.

The other thing, which is just insane to me, is Previewing of filetypes, so if it's a JPEG, it shows a picture of the image as the actual icon, which is fine if I select a Thumbnail view or a Slideshow mode.

So go and disable that, because it's annoying.

Now, that then makes it completely unavailable to other Apps to show you a thumbnail mode in an Open Dialogue box, or any other window where you would like to see thumbnails on your icons, it's no longer there unless you go hunting through your menus again.

There's other things too such as having to click an extra 5 things to get into something that took me 2 clicks before. The other things are little pet peeves which is just an adjustment period, but those others are very irritating.

Reply Score: 3

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

There are a number of settings that got buried deeper for no apparent reason. I use Windows Mobility Center for quick access to most of the things I want to change on a regular basis.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: oh no more vista!
by raver31 on Tue 20th Feb 2007 23:15 UTC
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

I work in a building with 750 employees.
Not one single person has upgraded to Vista, and we were offered it for free.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: oh no more vista!
by pr0c on Wed 21st Feb 2007 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: oh no more vista!"
pr0c Member since:
2005-07-06

How disturbing! Out of 750 people none of you have interest in learning and research? And even for FREE? Do you work for some branch of a government that still uses typewriters?

On the contrary, I work for a good sized consulting firm, we were told NOT to install Vista yet because of our [crappy] vpn implementation and various legacy apps. However a quarter of us use Vista anyway. The majority of us feel it is very important to be on the edge of the industry even at the expense of inconvenience.

Yes I am an early adopter, yes I know most people aren't. Yes I know my stance is more rewarding.

Good day.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: oh no more vista!
by raver31 on Wed 21st Feb 2007 17:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: oh no more vista!"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

No. I work in a company where uptime is important.
We need our computers to work flawlessly.

At the minute, 90% use WIndows 2000, the rest use XP.
The servers are a mixture of Solaris and Debian.

At home, around 70% use XP, 10% use Linux, and the rest dual boot between both.

We were offered Vista for free, but instead, decided to install it on test machines in work.

PCs that we ourselves do not own.

Like I said. We like to keep working and value our PCs.

Even people who were getting excited by the upcoming release of Vista said no when they heard how bad it actually was.

Reply Score: 3

Disabling UAC
by jayson.knight on Tue 20th Feb 2007 23:27 UTC
jayson.knight
Member since:
2005-07-06

As annoying as UAC is, it's a shame to see this many sites flat out saying "disable it immediately." I agree that it is far from perfect, however now people will start disabling simply because "well, PCWorld said it was ok to do it."

This then perpetuates the gaping security holes in Windows for yet another generation. Power users/ corporate users, fine disable it. The other 95% of the world needs to truly understand what could happen to their machine if they turn this off.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Disabling UAC
by Headrush on Wed 21st Feb 2007 00:32 UTC in reply to "Disabling UAC"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

People will turn it off because its annoying, not because any article said to. Same way people always use to run as administrator.

I wouldn't say this is unnecessarily perpetuating something that isn't true. If a feature is designed poorly that users will turn it off, then this is a design problem. MS can do better and hopefully they will.

Reply Score: 1

the final one...
by xophere on Wed 21st Feb 2007 00:16 UTC
xophere
Member since:
2006-07-19

that is the big deal to me... I am fine with improvements re-learning etc. But the only people some of these changes would help are people who have never used a PC. And no one can convince me that MS cares about those people in the least. It just means it takes longer to get your work done.

Anyone want to start a class action lawsuit? Monopoly power used to required more expensive PC and the lower worker productivity? ;)

Reply Score: 1

That's all?!
by apoclypse on Wed 21st Feb 2007 00:31 UTC
apoclypse
Member since:
2007-02-17

There are other things which I'm sure drive others crazy about vista. Hiding the file menu for one. Why?! Having to hunt through menus of stuff only to fin you've passed th option like five time in the control panel. add/remove programs comes to mind. My suggestion just switch to classic view. There' other stuff but I'll giver others a chance. Its an okay effort by MS, and I think that had they sat down and really thought thing through it would have been a great OS, that in the least would have made me have it on a partition somewhere (for the games).

Reply Score: 1

Easy Answer
by FishB8 on Wed 21st Feb 2007 00:52 UTC
FishB8
Member since:
2006-01-16

The most annoying thing about Vista? Microsoft! Gosh that was easy.

Reply Score: 3

looks stunning - NOT!
by zhulien on Wed 21st Feb 2007 01:52 UTC
zhulien
Member since:
2006-12-06

I can't believe so many people "state" that it looks stunning - that is their opinion, to me it looks sh*t and it has massive borders around every window and the windows explorer looks horrible without the menus. In the end, what it "looks" like is irrelavent though, what matters is how well it works.

Reply Score: 2

Borders are too wide.
by gregk on Wed 21st Feb 2007 02:36 UTC
gregk
Member since:
2006-03-13

wobblywindows +1

Reply Score: 1

Not again!
by como on Wed 21st Feb 2007 06:16 UTC
como
Member since:
2006-11-20

Do we need another Vista bashing article. I read it and not a single valid annoying thing! There could be valid points, but annoyances? Give me a break. I'm not annoyed that Vista Basic is crippled. I'm not annoyed by DRM (purely superficial point). Not annoyed by a single thing the article mentions.

Reply Score: 1

Before vista
by heh heh on Wed 21st Feb 2007 06:54 UTC
heh heh
Member since:
2005-07-06

Ya know before vista you could get a new dell computer
a couple years ago for $350 running winxp, now vista
cost more. times sure have changed is that better?

Reply Score: 2

For Family's
by whendrik on Wed 21st Feb 2007 07:54 UTC
whendrik
Member since:
2006-12-16

Maybe Vista is ment for happy Family's who like to share photos with they nice computer. Microsoft did a research with 100 familys to see how they can improve they operating system.

Reply Score: 1

USA and DRM
by eivind on Wed 21st Feb 2007 08:22 UTC
eivind
Member since:
2005-11-09

From the article:
Hackers are finding ways to break through the encryption on high-def discs--but as long as the DMCA stays on the books, their argument for why these tools should be legal ("They're for making backup copies") won't hold water in court.

This will hold court in Norway. USA is notorious for being consumer hostile and pro-captalism. I know there are trade-offs both ways, but eventually consumers in the USA are going to say "enough is enough" and through out DRM completely together with Microsoft alike.

Reply Score: 2

Wow... criticism!
by Darkelve on Wed 21st Feb 2007 08:40 UTC
Darkelve
Member since:
2006-02-06

Mainstream applications are actually writing negative things about the Windows Kingdom... the nerve!

There's still a fair share of biased happy-feelgood Vista "reviews", but it's good to see that a number of publications got over their fear of being slammed by the MS machine and actually start writing about real problems that are present.

Reply Score: 2

Patience...
by Brendan on Wed 21st Feb 2007 09:44 UTC
Brendan
Member since:
2005-11-16

Over time, the price of Vista will drop. It's the usual "take lots from the impatient, then take what you can from the rest" pricing strategy that most companies do.

Over time, the hefty hardware requirements will also seem less hefty. This has always been the case.

Now consider the way I do things. I bought a new computer with an OEM version of XP not long after XP came out, then got rid of XP and installed an old copy of Win98. Last year I upgraded the motherboard an put WinXP back on it. Sooner or later I'll buy a new PC with an OEM version of Vista, and probably remove Vista and install XP on it. Much later I'll probably upgrade that machine and re-install Vista.

As long as my main (dual Pentium III, Gentoo) machine keeps ticking I don't care how long I need to wait before I'm running Vista on my games machine...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Patience...
by dylansmrjones on Wed 21st Feb 2007 15:37 UTC in reply to "Patience..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Heh, I know that model. I'm pleased to know I'm not the only one being slow to upgrade to the latest new wonder ;)

I upgraded to Win2K in 2004. Win2K3 in late 2005 (or was it early 2006? I've forgotten now). I doubt I'll upgrade to Vista, but perhaps ReactOS around v. 0.7.x will be tested (0.2.x was fun, but not useful).

I'll stick to Win2K3 as long as possible, and when it is time to upgrade, I hope OS'es has become deprecated in favour of true cross-platform applications (or I'll have to switch to ReactOS).

Reply Score: 2

Hmm..
by dylansmrjones on Wed 21st Feb 2007 15:00 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

The critique of the indexed search is quite weird.

Of course the indexing service only indexes the user's home directory per default. So does Beagle. It's a multiuser system so it should stay within the user's home directory unless otherwise configured.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmm..
by stestagg on Wed 21st Feb 2007 16:36 UTC in reply to "Hmm.."
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Getting it to index other locations is not straightforward.

I tried to add an entire separate drive which I keep documents on, and a day later, none of the content had been indexed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hmm..
by dylansmrjones on Wed 21st Feb 2007 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm.."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Hmm.. Weird. OTOH, having it not indexed is probably no worse than having beagled-helper running at 67-75% for a week, trying frantically to index your Thunderbird mailboxes ;)

Reply Score: 2

sumone
by sumone on Wed 21st Feb 2007 21:19 UTC
sumone
Member since:
2007-02-11

THE MOST ANNOYING PARTS ARE THE TRULY LAME, HALF-BAKED, DUMBED DOWN, MEDIOCRE, WAY-TOO-BASIC, FEATURELESS APPLICATIONS. IF OTHERS ARE GOING TO SUE MS, THEY CAN KEEP FULL-FEATURED APPS FOR FREE DOWNLOAD. BUNDLING PROBLEM SOLVED.

Reply Score: 0

RE: sumone
by archiesteel on Wed 21st Feb 2007 22:08 UTC in reply to "sumone"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

WRITING IN ALL CAPS IS AKIN TO SHOUTING AND IS CONSIDERED RUDE.

Thank you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: sumone
by sumone on Thu 22nd Feb 2007 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE: sumone"
sumone Member since:
2007-02-11

I was shouting at MS, sorry. ;)

Reply Score: 1