Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Jul 2008 22:04 UTC
Windows As someone who uses Windows Vista practically daily, I've always wondered where all the negativity in the media comes from. Sure, Vista isn't perfect (as if any operating system is), but I just don't see where all the complaints are coming from. It runs just fine on my old (6 years) machine, all my software and hardware is compatible, and it's stable as a rock. Microsoft has been wondering the same thing, and after a little test, they may have found out why people seem to dislike Vista so much.
Thread beginning with comment 324645
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Indeed, a little lie
by melkor on Sat 26th Jul 2008 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Indeed, a little lie"
Member since:

The major issue with Vista is several fold:

1. Some stability issues upon initial release
2. New UI (not all of the new UI is smartly done either I do admit)
3. Very bad press - and this is the big one. Nearly all of the computer press unreasonably bagged Vista, without adequate proof or reasoning. Sadly, most people are blind idiots, and they 100% believe what the press says instead of trying themselves.
4. Exceptionally bad efforts from 3rd party software vendors on updating their existing software to use the new Vista based security model. They wanted to save money, stick to existing insecure methods of coding their crappy software, rather than do the changes as was needed.
5. Same as point 4, but with driver vendors. Even worse, many driver vendors just simply said tough shit to its loyal users and refused to produce Vista drivers at all (Creative anyone?).

You simply cannot blame Microsoft for this. I mean, let's look at it from a Linux angle. Driver vendors don't provide drivers, it's their fault. Substitute Linux with Microsoft, and suddenly it's Microsoft's fault. What idiotic lack of logical reasoning allows this type of thought process? Expecting hardware manufacturers to open up their code is absolutely unreasonable. It is THEIR product. Period.

As to the gentleman who advised me to give it up, yes, you're right - most people here will just blindly mod you down, not because the post is inaccurate, but simply because they disagree with you, or are pro Linux and like to bash anyone who writes anything good about a Microsoft product. Hey guys, Server 2008 is looking REALLY good - I'm sure that'll add to Linux' falling server numbers (yes, Server 2003 did a lot of damage to the Linux numbers in the server field, and rightly so, it's a good product). Microsoft isn't perfect, but then neither is Linux. Both have their uses, and both are good operating systems. Both have weaknesses. Ignoring one operating systems weaknesses and bagging the other one is really not right. It's not a balanced argument.

As an aside - Debian GNU/Linux install on my current PC - 10+ hours. Windows Vista? Done in under 2 hours, and that included 3rd party drivers, 3rd party software etc. Vista has so far proved to be far easier to maintain, and visually looks far nicer than Linux I might add (even with composite turned on etc).


Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Indeed, a little lie
by 6c1452 on Sat 26th Jul 2008 02:01 in reply to "RE[4]: Indeed, a little lie"
6c1452 Member since:

As an aside - Debian GNU/Linux install on my current PC - 10+ hours.


Net install over 56K? Or make with the story telling!

Edited 2008-07-26 02:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Indeed, a little lie
by alexandru_lz on Sat 26th Jul 2008 10:56 in reply to "RE[4]: Indeed, a little lie"
alexandru_lz Member since:

Just two points:

1. Bad press was coupled with extremely bad and unrealistic advertising. On one hand, some of the announced features didn't make 'till the end. Some of them, like WinFS, were not really useful, but it doesn't make for a good image. Second (and with this one, it certainly didn't win back any users), it had a very idiotic way of presenting every new feature as something revolutionary, even though other operating system had had it for months or even years, or could easily be added to Windows XP through a couple of third party programs. Not moving from XP to Vista is not only due to bad image, deserved or not, it's also due to Microsoft not giving absolutely any damn serious reason to move to Vista. Well, apart from the usual vendor lockdown issues which will appear shortly. Is there any groundbreaking feature that Vista has and you can't get from XP? No? Then why spend the extra $$$, and quite possibly upgrade the computer?

2. I'm not sure what took you so long when installing Debian. It took me less than two hours to do it on my laptop, and that includes a shiFtload of packages.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Indeed, a little lie
by lemur2 on Sat 26th Jul 2008 12:20 in reply to "RE[4]: Indeed, a little lie"
lemur2 Member since:

Microsoft's claimed "gains" in the server space are due only to Microsoft taking credit for hosting dead domains. It is purely a marketing sleight-of-hand, similar to counting downgrades to XP as Vista licenses.

10+ hours for a debian install? It takes two hours tops ... 30 minutes if you use something like Siddux or Ubuntu.

Either your install is borked and it is not going to work anyway ... or you are fibbing about it.

Now there is a jaw-dropping concept ... "Lying for Microsoft". What on earth next?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Indeed, a little lie
by melkor on Mon 28th Jul 2008 10:58 in reply to "RE[5]: Indeed, a little lie"
melkor Member since:

Hey - before you judge me, maybe you should actually find out why it took me so long?

Firstly - issues with the Marvell Yukon network card. I'm still not sure why I have networking in Debian, no idea why, since the Yukon is *not* working and it's the only network card in the machine.

Try a Nvidia 8400GS with a Samsung 24" widescreen LCD monitor. Not even Ubuntu did it right. And that took several hours of research on my part to try and figure out how to get it working, since the Linux kernel src was not installed, and I could not find a package amongst Debian's myriad amounts of packages. The only reason why I ended up getting it working I suspect is because I installed some package that I'd never heard of before in all my years of using Linux, that supposedly auto installs (or helps to) driver packages (sorry, the name eludes me). I tried to install the nvidia drivers but they borked. For fun, I used this application to install ndiswrapper (even though I didn't need it) and voila - I had a Linux kernel src tree. From there, the rest was dead easy, the proprietary Nvidia drivers installed in a jiffy. Oh, and even when trying to install X as a 800*600 256 colour setup on this system, it still would NOT f--king load. Dropped to a terminal every *single* goddamn time. Hell, even Windows 95 shits on Linux in this respect. Why does Linux have it so goddamn hard to do this? I can tell you now, your average user would say "screw this piece of shit, it's back to Windows for me, Linux sucks".

Oh, and then there's the problem with KDE/XFCE (this happened on Ubuntu). I went to install the xfce4 package. No dependency issues mentioned by apt. What does it do, post install? f--king screws KDE royally, uninstall a shitload of packges. Now, no warning was made by apt about this. None. Nada. Niente. Niet. Keine. Get the drift? Well, that took a bit of time to sort out. I knew better to try that on Debian. All in all, probably 4-5 hours wasted on Ubuntu before I got it up and running, and probably closer to 10 hours on Debian of troubleshooting, installing packages, fiddling with things etc.

You can happily sit on your Linux tree (that's a pun, given your user name ;) ), and say it's great, and if you like to fiddle, then it is. If you want a working system, quickly and easily, then for most people, Linux will NOT be your ticket to joy I'm afraid to say. True, not all of this is Linux' fault, but a lot is.

Sure, I got Linux working eventially, the key word is eventually.

Don't get me wrong, Vista is incurring my wrath (well, not Vista, but Canon actually) - my rather expensive Canon EOS1D Mark IIn is not detected by the system at all, and Canon's technical help is about as much fun as having my balls pulled off square mm by square mm. Other than that though, My Vista system works with everything else, without *any* issue. I've had a few issues, but nothing major, nothing that didn't happen under any other o/s:

1. Explorer crashing (once in 5 weeks of usage, not bad) - i've seen X crash more often than that!
2. A game I've started playing (Oblivion) has a weird issue when exiting the game, saying that it did not close properly, and the mouse is dead. A quick ^ meta del (sounds much cooller doesn't it?) fixes that and regains mouse usage. I suspect that this is actually down to either the latest update for it, or the unofficial Oblivion patch (I installed both at the same time, so not sure which caused the issue to start happening).
3. I had the sidebar disappear on me once, but it came back by itself, not sure what happened there.
4. Winamp - even though I told Winamp to be associated with the right click drop down menu (i.e. play in Winamp), it didn't work. A subsequent update 2 weeks later to a newer version seemed to fix the issue. Weird.
5. I can't access the Vista partition from my XP partition - permission denied. I haven't investigated the issue, but this is different to pre Vista systems, so maybe it's some new security setup.

UAC has not been an issue - it does not come up frequently as some would argue, and it's easy to read, and easy to use. Big deal.

Oh, and my Creative Xen M 60gb MP3 player works! I didn't think it would, but Creative's software installers are retarded. After re-reading the installers help me file, I found out what I'd done wrong (basically, plug in MP3 player first, let Windows Vista find it, then leave it plugged in and install the Creative software, weird!).


Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Indeed, a little lie
by obi_oni on Sat 26th Jul 2008 14:22 in reply to "RE[4]: Indeed, a little lie"
obi_oni Member since:

As an aside - Debian GNU/Linux install on my current PC - 10+ hours. Windows Vista? Done in under 2 hours, and that included 3rd party drivers, 3rd party software etc.

Okay, I'll bite. I just had to do this a week ago, so it's still very clear to me: I installed Debian in little from a recent netinst CD on a very recent AMD64 in hardly any time. Trying to install Windows I had to jump through hoops, scavenge drivers from backward places, find/extract/adjust .inf files for certain devices (like a bluetooth dongle f.e.), and keep on rebooting for updates, drivers, etc. The whole Windows installation experience seems like a collection of Voodoo rituals to me.

Maybe I just know my way around Debian better these days, but imo the Debian installation is way faster and smoother than the Windows one.

Reply Parent Score: 2