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 324931
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Well, Mojave did nothing, then...
by cerbie on Tue 29th Jul 2008 18:31 UTC
cerbie
Member since:
2006-01-02

While the test of course lacks vital elements of the whole Vista experience, such as installing, upgrading, hooking up hardware, connecting to the network, and so on...

Well, doesn't that defeat the validity of the test? In my use of Vista (Business), the worst problem I encountered just running things was choppy video playback, which nVidia later fixed. I only had one other problem at all, that being that gecko based apps would never fully close. Performance was fine, with an Athlon XP (don't recall speed), 1.5GB RAM, 80GB HDD, and GF FX 5200.

"To be sure, the focus groups didn't have to install Vista or hook it up to their existing home network." (Cnet)
Network configuration having too many windows involved, all modal, is still my #1 Vista complaint, and was also my second, chronologically (the first being that I got used to reacting to UAC prompts by reflex within my first half-hour of using Vista, just like any OK/Cancel box; which has never happened with any sudo variant). If the focus group did not have to go there, or other similar places, in the OS' UI, nor ever encounter a security barrier of any kind, then the test is bunk.

Installing and removing applications, changing display settings, handling network configuration, changing other hardware settings, and running misc. downloaded applications (I use many of the same apps on any OS) are where some of the Vista hate comes from.

They added more dialogs in the way, and more unnecessary options, rather than really change the UI for the better. They run RAM and CPU eating monsters, rather than just change the way they access your hard drive (Superfetch v. a CFS clone on Windows), or run through the FS (indexing v. a layer that makes it as quick as find on EXT3/RFS/JFS). They waste screen real estate. UAC is a bandaid to a badly implemented security model (just in case you misread it, I specifically mean the way it is used on the desktop OS), and nothing remotely like sudo.

All the benefits are more than made up for by the annoying features that Vista can get in the way with. Apple doesn't need a tightly controlled experiment. Their desktop search works well, without making regular tasks noticeably slower. Their backup feature is practically automatic, and works well (if my main desktop were a Mac, the backup feature alone would be worth the $100+ point release upgrade cost to 1.5). Expose beats Windows' new task switcher with a wiffle bat (because it stings). The list could keep going on.

MS has some great stuff at the heart of all of the NT-based OSes, and Vista is no exception. But, the overall user experience has gone downhill on Vista, where it has only gotten better on other OSes.

I do hope they get it right with Windows 7, and focus on making the actual user experience a good one, rather than just bolting on features. The core is good. The UI needs to be scrapped and built anew. The design goal should be that the user does not now or care about it.

This Mojave thing was well executed inverse-FUD. I will go home to Arch (desktop FotM) and PCLOS, not Vista.

Reply Score: 2