Give me one legitimate thing wrong with vista?

Monstermunch · 26 Feb 2006 at 02:23

Psyk said:
I've noticed a lot of people here criticise vista and they come up with all sorts of reasons. Althought I have yet to hear a convincing argument against it. I would like to upgrade to it as soon as I can but I do want to make sure it is actually better than XP before I spend money on it. So what are the possible problems with Vista?

Because of HISTORY. Every version of windows bar (except XP) has been crap for the first 6 months after release until the first service packs are available to iron out the problems.

Just mention a few to jog your memory:

Win 95 - Close but no cigar - still had it's problems
Win 98 - Before Second Edition - Say no more
Win ME - LOL
Win 2000 - Only 20%ish compatible with games

Just the mere thought of the first version of 98 and ME makes me want to hurt myself

Monstermunch · 26 Feb 2006 at 02:30

NathanE said:
It is the single biggest update to Windows since Windows 3.1->Windows 95.

Rubbish!

XP was the first version of windows completely re-designed from top to toe, all previous versions were based on the original base system of 3.1

I agree that Vista sounds like it will better XP in many ways, but it uses XP as a base platform and has been re-designed. I also agree that it is more than a mere shiny polish on XP, but it is not the single biggest update. XP still has that crown!

I will change to Vista but will wait and see if there any teething problems first cos history would indicate that there will be.

andi · 26 Feb 2006 at 02:56

wush said:
It's kool to "hate" Microsoft for no reason.. that's why.

Definetly. I remember all the hating of XP, until people realised it was actually quite good

Caged · 26 Feb 2006 at 04:03

Monstermunch said:
XP was the first version of windows completely re-designed from top to toe, all previous versions were based on the original base system of 3.1

What

Monstermunch · 26 Feb 2006 at 09:59

Caged said:
What

XP may look similar to all the others, but it was designed from scratch instead of using existing code from pervious versions of windows as a base. That is why it's more stable, and has recovery etc.

dirtydog · 26 Feb 2006 at 10:10

Monstermunch said:
XP may look similar to all the others, but it was designed from scratch instead of using existing code from pervious versions of windows as a base. That is why it's more stable, and has recovery etc.

That isn't quite true is it

It was more of a slight upgrade from Windows 2000, which itself was based on NT4.

chex · 26 Feb 2006 at 11:21

andi said:
Definetly. I remember all the hating of XP, until people realised it was actually quite good

they did??

O.o

where was I

smids · 26 Feb 2006 at 11:33

The thing that bugs me about DRM is when you purchase content but overclock and kill windows. I did this, and lost the ability to play my purchased content - luckily only 5 music files. If that is the case, then I guess I'm screwed when it comes to upgrading. Also, when you upgrade, in the time the computer is down for a reinstall, like I often do, this certainly locks your music.

Another thing, I transferred all my music to my Sony HD-5 which DRM's it. Since the reinstall, I cannot transfer it back - I still have it on my storage drive but I arranged it all (spending about a day) on my HD5. I transferred it in .mp3 but now want it in ATRAC so it uses less space and the battery lasts longer but I cannot do this - I'm going to have to wipe the HD5 and re-organise the entire collection.

I don't have a gripe with DRM as it is probably a good thing, but someone should have thought about how restrictive it is. For this reason alone I'm not upgrading until I need to.

NathanE · 26 Feb 2006 at 11:42

Windows XP was built upon Windows 2000, which in turn was built upon Windows NT 4. No version of Windows has ever been "redesigned from scratch" in the way that Mr Monstermunch is suggesting. Vista is built upon Windows Server 2003, although the massive changes to that OS have earned it the NT version 6.0 tag.

XP doesn't hold the crown to the single biggest update to Windows either, and never did. It was just a skinned version of Windows 2000 with some other improvements. Most people will say Windows 2000 was the best update to Windows, because it brought about a usable and rock solid stable OS. But people who've been in the game a bit longer

will say Windows 95 was the biggest update. Because that of course added all the things we take for granted today, such as plug'n'play, the taskbar, the basic Explorer shell. Sure in hindsight it may have been an unstable and relatively badly received update to Windows but back then when this stuff was still new it was awesome.

Jokester said:
What's Microsofts plans as regards DRM with Vista?

Contrary to popular belief their plans are actually very small. They are doing the bare minimum to keep the RIAA and MPAA happy. They have also added some of their own optional features such as the BitLocker encryption. This uses a TPM module's key to encrypt your files on NTFS. It is basically just a more secure version of the encryption already available in NTFS. It isn't a form of DRM though because 1) it's optional 2) it doesn't restrict _your_ access to _your_ files - it only prevents others from accessing your stuff...

Windows Media Player is sure to see some DRM enhancements (upon what it has already that is) to keep media suppliers happy.

smids · 26 Feb 2006 at 11:48

Yup, I remember using 3.1 as a 5 yr old boy back in 1990? Man, our 286 was so bad... Loading up AMI (a wordprocessor) could sometimes lock the system as it ran out of RAM (all 640K of it). My dad had upgraded the comp to 3.1 and it was weird. I just played snake on it tbh, or minesweeper. Ah, the good old days. Then Win95 came along and wow - what a difference. You could actually use it easily. No more DOS prompt where you typed in C:\win to get windows to run or 3 columns of separated icons for different tasks...

Monstermunch · 26 Feb 2006 at 13:52

dirtydog said:
That isn't quite true is it It was more of a slight upgrade from Windows 2000, which itself was based on NT4.

Sorry but you're wrong. XP has been completely re-designed and may have some similarities to 2000 but the coding and base system is completely new.

Monstermunch · 26 Feb 2006 at 13:54

Mind you, all of this talk about XP still doesn't change the fact that Vista will have problems when it arrives and as much as i'm looking forward to upgrading to it I will definitely wait until the first service pack is released.

NathanE · 26 Feb 2006 at 13:56

Monstermunch said:
Sorry but you're wrong. XP has been completely re-designed and may have some similarities to 2000 but the coding and base system is completely new.

No, you are wrong. It's pretty amusing that anybody could think this... Ignoring all the obvious reasons (such as there being no need to rewrite NT in the first place), it just isn't possible to "redesign" and "rewrite" an operating system in the time of a single year. That's how long there was between the Windows 2000 and XP releases...

smids · 26 Feb 2006 at 14:00

NathanE said:
No, you are wrong.

Quoted for truth.

XP was a souped up GUI stuck on Windows 2000 as far as I am aware (and I'm not expert in this field). That is about all it did. Of course, it was a big more than this, but essentially that is what it is. XP was not a whole new redesign, probably showcased by the fact that Microsoft specifically designed it for backwards compatibility with older OS'es all the way to 95.

The whole 95 > XP were closely linked.

It was like DOS > 3.1 > 95-XP > Vista

Those are the jumps in my eyes - but as I said before, I know little about this, so please correct me if I am wrong.

NathanE · 26 Feb 2006 at 14:05

To be honest, Vista is the closest Microsoft has ever come to allowing the "rewritten" word to be used in the same sentence as "Windows". Some very core components of Vista have been completely dropped and rebuilt from scratch. The networking, audio and video subsystems, for instance. Apart from that it is just an incremental upgrade to the previous NT 5.2 kernel.

Caged · 26 Feb 2006 at 14:14

I wonder if the 3.1 add font dialog is still there

dirtydog · 26 Feb 2006 at 14:38

Monstermunch said:
Sorry but you're wrong. XP has been completely re-designed and may have some similarities to 2000 but the coding and base system is completely new.

*chuckles*

arty · 26 Feb 2006 at 15:00

NathanE said:
To be honest, Vista is the closest Microsoft has ever come to allowing the "rewritten" word to be used in the same sentence as "Windows". Some very core components of Vista have been completely dropped and rebuilt from scratch. The networking, audio and video subsystems, for instance. Apart from that it is just an incremental upgrade to the previous NT 5.2 kernel.

How many incremental upgrades does it take before a whole OS is 'new' compared to one in its past, I wonder? For example, is there code in 95 which is still present in XP, and will there be any in Vista?

Just an interesting thought. I'm looking forward to seeing the crustiness that are Windows Forms finally consigned to the scrapheap, and I'm looking forward to Monad. Other than those I have neutral feelings and will wait and see, like everyone else should

arty

fini · 26 Feb 2006 at 15:21

arty said:
For example, is there code in 95 which is still present in XP, and will there be any in Vista?

IIRC there's still some code from 3.1 in XP

Oh and can I join in 'lolling' at monstermunch

fini

NathanE · 26 Feb 2006 at 15:58

arty said:
How many incremental upgrades does it take before a whole OS is 'new' compared to one in its past, I wonder? For example, is there code in 95 which is still present in XP, and will there be any in Vista?

Just an interesting thought. I'm looking forward to seeing the crustiness that are Windows Forms finally consigned to the scrapheap, and I'm looking forward to Monad. Other than those I have neutral feelings and will wait and see, like everyone else should

arty

I think the recent WMF vulnerability proved there is still code present from the Windows 95 days and beyond. Another good example is Explorer itself. This has not once seen any massive reengineering done to it. It has essentially stayed the same since its inception in Windows 95. Even Vista isn't changing that... sure it adds some new Explorer features like the Sidebar and exposes that all important new desktop search functionality but it is still very much an incremental improvement over the Explorer we have in XP.

Windows Forms were never intended to last. At the time when .NET 1.0 was about to RTM, work on Avalon and WinFX was only just getting started. So they just wrapped up all the existing Win32 controls into what we know as Windows Forms today. It's not that bad, for a wrapper... but yes I can't wait for Avalon and WinFX!

These have a more Java Swing-style approach to widget and class abstraction. E.g. the concept of subclassable "panels". Though unlike Swing it won't be dog slow, thanks to Avalon's hardware acceleration

BTW: Monad won't ship in Vista Client. The first appearance Monad will make is in the new Exchange Server. It will most probably be in Vista Server too.