I have recently installed a beta version of Vista on my spare machine. Within 15 minutes of install I got the infamous blue screen of death. Not only that but to say that the speed that it ran was slow is an understatement.

I started using Linux some time ago and haven't rebooted my computer in 5 months (that is when I first put the install disk in).

Also reading the various articles on the net once you have installed it and want to make a major upgrade your machine (Motherboard, CPU), you will only be able to do this once. After that you will have to either make a request to Microsoft for leniency or repurchase a new license. The only reason I can think of for this is to make Microsoft more money. There is no security reason for this at all (unless anybody else can think of one).

So the question begs, why should anybody use Windows at all anymore when there are free operating systems available that are more robust, reliable, secure, and that don't restrict the user?

I believe that even though this won't spell the end Microsoft it is definitely the start. This is by and far the worst offering from Microsoft since... well ever!

Even this forum is being run on a Linux server!!!

Well, though I personally don't like Vista, I cannot see why you are whining about a Beta that gave problems, Beta's are just Beta's, then you have Release Candidates and later still Final Release....

If you had started with Linux some time earlier you would have probably experienced the same, Linux is really stable since about three/four years, before it was a real problem to install it unless you had the "right" hardware.

And about Microsoft commercial Policy, though again I agree with you, I cannot see why you joined the board and started a new thread just to disagree with it, there are already several threads about the matter....


jaclaz

I started with a Minix dual boot way back in 1995-96 which I suppose I did have problems with but that was only due to my lack of experience with computers in general. That said I still have the old 386 it was installed on and it still works (even the networking).

With regards to it being a beta, even a beta shouldn't fall over in such a shameful way after 15mins. Even Windows 98 beta when that came out dispite its problems worked for a full day before it fell over.

You forgot after the final release you have the Service pack 2 which closes all the security holes left in the original release. By the time it is a stable reliable platform Microsoft will have brought out Windows Everest Edition or what ever they are going to call the mountain of bloatware that they are going to force people to have installed on their machines when they want to buy a new one next time round.

I just felt the need to add my two cents and to vent some pent up frustration. I think I need to get laid more

Before? That's still the case IMO. Wireless cards can be a PITA to get working (often via ndiswrapper). Newer video cards are often problematic. Getting lots of simple things working (like spdif out of a SB Live 5.1) is sometimes a nightmare (at least on the distro I was using). Lots of things like that.

Installing software isn't exactly always easy either - not as much as under windows IMO. Like Mythtv or TrixBox and others. There's distros that help installing some of those, but what if I want a different distro, or use both (can't just install both distros on the same box). Or another little thing: installing apache. Easy enough to start the install process via apt-get or whatever the distro of choice uses, but it doesn't ask nor tell where it puts the htdocs (home for your pages or whatever) - which seemingly varies from one distro to another, it doesn't start the service or anything (just in case you were just installing it for the sake of using disk space and not serving pages?) Too many things are unecessarily complicated to accomplish.

Don't get me wrong, it's a very useful OS, at least for many niche purposes, like dirt cheap LAMP hosting, firewalls, etc.

But the main reason to stick to windows (you're the one asking)? 99% of the apps I need/want require windows (and have no direct/suitable replacement), and it's unlikely to change anytime soon. As for linux automatically and necessarily being more robust/reliable/secure or whatever, I'm calling FUD on this one.

Besides, Vista isn't that bad. I've tried the betas, and never got a BSOD (and likely your problem was with your specific hardware config or drivers, and yes, it's expected and normal that this can happen in a few cases like yours). And w/o Aero and all that, it runs pretty smoothly even on older PCs.

That's funny!
Thanks Mike, I was in need of a good giggle.

M$'s software quality has indeed declined... my experience with an early beta of Vista wasn't as bad as yours, but not being able to easily modify the files on your own hard drive and use unsigned drivers was irritating, not to mention it ran slow. M$ just seems to be wanting to lock everything so that users can't do much in the way of customisations.

The reason for this is that Windows initially wasn't built as a networking operating system. To quote Good 'Ol Bill "The internet is going no where". That is why there are so many security holes in it. It is also the reason for not being able to modify your own files easily. They have built layers and layers of security upon something that should have been re-written from scratch as soon as the internet started to come to the forefront of technology.

They are just being slack as far as I am concerened. Instead of releasing a good product they are releasing software that will force people to upgrade the software into the next decade (Visions of Elliot Carver from Tomorrow Never Dies).

I certainly hope you change your mind in the future, and it's sad that you base your opinion of Vista on a beta.


It's slow because it's running checked versions of most things in the OS - meaning it's about 50% slower than the release (unchecked) versions of 58xx and up. If you're running RC2, it's probably slow due to this.


This is incorrect - it was this way for some reason during the betas, but cooler heads prevailed and the licensing terms are basically the same as XP's. No "one install/activation limit".


That is, of course, your opinion. I'm sorry your experience with Vista was not good, but at least give RTM a try - basing your opinion on a product on a beta seems a bit near-sighted, but if Linux works for you, go with it.


I've said it before, and I'll say it again - over 50% of support calls are due to buggy, poorly-written, and (for the most part, anyway) unsigned 3rd party drivers. This is a way to try and stabilize the OS, make driver writers more accountable for their driver code, and reduce support costs for the OS by reducing the most common support call. You can disable this in group policy or via the registry if you want your system more under your control. However, I must mention that if you do call for support, they're going to make you turn that back on and reboot before you do anything else.

I have been using Vista on and off for a year now - and it did crash frequently. But I dutifully submitted my crash reports and they have fixed each issue that I reported.

I've been running the RTM build for several weeks now and don't have any problems with it's stability.

What I do have a problem with is the lack of available apps for Vista. XP apps just don't work all that well in Vista - so I'm eagerly awaiting the flood of apps that should come once Vista is released to the general public.

If you put poor quality gas in your car and it runs lousy - do you blame the car manufacturer - or the gas? The same goes for Microsoft. They spent gazillion's of dollars to ensure backwards compatibility - but they had to draw the line somewhere. And that was the principle of "least privilege".

So, that's where they draw the line. And it's consistent with what they've been saying for years ("Don't use the Administrator account", "Run your system as a limited user", etc). But users don't listen to this advice (myself included) and routinely run as administrators. So software writers realized this and also find that it's easier to write code for administrators than it is for limited users.

In general, those of us posting here (and on other forums) are only a small part of the customer base that Microsoft has. The majority of folks buy a computer, turn it on, and call someone when they have a problem. They don't need or even want to know why - they just want it fixed. Microsoft, being a business, must consider this when developing their products - and must adjust their product development to help assure that people are protected from themselves (this is what I like to call the "McDonald's" theory - where the big corporations are held responsible for the user's ineptitude. In the case of McDonalds, it was because someone sued them for having coffee that burned them when they spilled it in their own lap)

'nuff said.

Its what she burned that makes one go 'Ouch!'

There is just so much hype about Vista right now, and 99% of it is just that - hype. There are so many mis-conceptions that it boggles the mind. Tried to help someone on another forum with a problem he was having, he tried to load a hacked (supposedly for performance) version of that old XP USB driver thing in Vista because he read somewhere that the drivers in Vista were crap, his machine slowed down to a crawl and for two weeks he was complaining about how Vista was crap until I asked him a question.."Did Vista work fine before you loaded those drivers?" His response was "Yeah it worked great, no problems at all until I put those drivers on." I asked him why he used those drivers and he said that someone on a forum had posted them and said that the Vista USB drivers were crap and didn't do such and such. I asked him if he believed that, his response was "Well, everyone can't be wrong about the drivers in Vista being crap". I asked him if he was going to change the drivers back to the in-box drivers and he said "No i'm not, Vista is crap, its not the drivers!"

...ahhh the things that make you go DuH!.

My own theory is: If one doesn't like something then don't use it, but just because one doesn't like it or doesn't want to use it doesn't necessarly mean thats true for others.

A law of physics and nature: Water tends to seek its own level. As such in reference to OS's, people who want to use a ceratin operating system tend to seek others with similar interest instead of hanging out in places where others don't share their interest.

Another law of physics and nature: Nature abhors a vacuum. As such in reference to OS's a windows forum might be a vacuum for one who uses a Linux system.

The theory is somewhat valid, but the name you chose is rather inappropriate, and the example sure is a bad one. That person didn't sue just because she accidentally poured some coffee on herself (happens, and it's not usually a problem).

The problem here is actually the company you're seemingly sympatizing with. After several hundreds of ppl getting serious burns - sometimes caused by their employees. and even though they've known their coffee to be dangerously hot (180 to 190 degrees F! - and not being any reasons to do so), they still continue to prepare/serve it that way (talk about being careless - there's publications about this very problem at the said company). And in this specific case, it was 3rd deree burns to the groin - those are deep burns, requiring skin grafts (to a place where I'd rather that never happen) and costs a lot of money (over 10k$ in this case). And it's not like people should expect coffee to be this ridiculously hot and dangerous (no warnings of any kind anywhere either). The couple times where I've had coffee there (not a pleasant experience for one's taste buds at all), I've discovered how hot it really is by burning my tongue with the first sip, after having waited for it to cool down quite a bit (nevermind it almost tasted better that way). Besides, spilling coffee isn't exactly ineptitude. Who hasn't ever spilled coffee before? Or any kind of drink, really. Common everyday accidents aren't ineptitude, and it certainly was the company at fault here (court ruled so too).

I wish people would stop siding with a company that willingly does bad things like this - not to comment on the nutritive value (or lack of) their "food". It would be difficult to come up with a worse example. That's just like siding with Ford about the exploding Pintos, because the drivers must have been inept or something (unfounded too), and calling it the Ford theory.

I think by 'user's ineptitude' he means that even though the person knew that coffee is served hot she still put the cup between her own legs and when it spilled out she got burned. The point being, if you know its hot and likely to burn you then common sense would tell you not to expose sensitive parts of your body to it. I don't think he's sympatizing with the company, he's making the point that MS took steps to account for people who are having difficulty with an OS, as in "Wer'e going to tell you how to do what you want and then show you how to do it, and help you along the way" - A valid instruction method called a 'Guided Approach' (or at least it used to be called that, don't know what they call it now a days)

you dont get bluescreens in vista..........

Its been at least three years or more since I saw a blue screen with XP, and I haven't seen a one with Vista RTM yet and i've really abused it too. The last blue screen I saw with Vista was with one of the earlier beta 1 builds.

Vista is very demanding for purposes that nobody really needs (3D windows? really?) but fine. I understand that for the average user, it's nice to have an eye-candy OS.

The real problem is that using security as an excuse, they prevent users from controlling their PC to make (they think) more money. Soon, you won't be allowed to play music or watch a video that's on your hard disk (DRM are already there but it will get much worse with Vista). That's something dangerous and that's something even the basic user doesn't like. Besides, if M$ really cared about security they would have got rid of services and all the bloat they include in the package. For exemple, the OS would have no open port out of the box until you decide to connect...

Why should we ask M$ or any major to do anything on our PCs? What about people without an internet connection (or who pay every time they connect)? What about states and administrations dealing with citizens personal informations? The whole concept of property is being jeopardized.

Sure, you'll be able to overpass all that with tweaks and hacks and they've changed the EULA a bit. But is this really the best kind of OS we could have? They're will just be more Linux fan out there.

The blue screen of death I was refering to I was using it as metaphor. What it really was was the black screen of black hole where nothing you can do (no matter how long you leave it) you are stuck within with no hope of escape (the best I managed was two hours of playing around).

I will try Vista again, BUT it won't be on a machine that I own. The industry as it stands at the moment requires that we have an understanding of the Microsoft operating system.

That said I won't look at Windows again for at least 3 - 4 years which (I hope) by that time they have sorted out all the problems that don't seem to plague the rest of the of the non-commercial OS's. If after this time (which again due to the nature of the beast) it hasn't resolved the problems that are inherent to MS software (bar notepad) I may be tempted to have another look at Windows.

I am not making this opinion upon one beta release but upon ten years of experience of using various operating systems.

I just don't think that even as a beta release that this OS has anything to offer other than a slightly improved GUI. Even then it leaves alot to be desired.

because im a PC gamer and there is no substitute for gaming under Windows. also im not much a fan of consoles.

this may be an over used reason, but its what keeps me with Windows. and i dont feel like learning a new OS when Windows works fine for me (hint: i said me).

Best and worst point yet!

Yes the only real platform to run games on (depending on) is Windows. But isn't that only because it is the most widely used platform. There are plenty of games that are now made to run native on various other OS.

That said MSPC != work; XBox360 == cool;

And it has to be pointed out again that the server that this forum is hosted upon is a Linux server... Why is that?

Don't get me wrong I have used windows for ten years, I just find it now lacking in areas that it shoud now be excelling in for the amount of time it has been around for.

They should be setting the trend! I just think now that MS have lost what it is all about.

I am not a Linux die hard fan but I don't want to let myself get tied into bondage... It isn't my bag

if more games were made for linux maybe people would switch, and if more people switched maybe more games would be made for linux.

its a vicious cycle and its all about who goes first a pity rele

Talking about the Bluescreen issue - i've not once had a bsod on RTM (Been using it at least a month now), and since Beta 2, the only bsod's I have had are ones I've caused myself by installing a driver which I KNOW is incompatible with Vista.

I love MS and Vista

How original,did you come up with the "Hasta la Vista" all by yourself.

-you ran a beta version and said it was slow...have you tryed the rtm version,because thats the only true way to rate a os system performance...vista rtm can't compare to the beta versions,it simply runs great!

-you say ms will only allow you to chgange hardware once then you "must make a request to Microsoft for leniency or repurchase a new license"...this is wrong,you can upgrade all component's any number of times with no need to repurchase.

-you say linux is "more robust, reliable, secure" where as a number of recent surveys prove that this is not the case,and that was comparing to xp!

-linux "don't restrict the user"...here you are finally correct

-saying this is the beginning of the end of ms is downright silly,no one can predict the future (would you have thought of google 5 years ago?)

-"This is by and far the worst offering from Microsoft since" didn't you try windows Me?

summary: get your facts right if your going to rant on about windows vista,the whole comparing windows vs linux get's boring after a while...why not get your hands on a copy of vista rtm and use it for a couple weeks and then write a review of what you did and didn't like!

ps:in case you think im some ms cheerleader,im not! i personally have used both windows and linux for a number of years (have used linux daily since redhat 5.2 days...with my distro of choice being suse) and this post being written using a usb key version of slax...

I echo everything you said. The Vista RC's are actually quite stable, but at least on my laptop RC2 and I have no doubt RTM... suck.

By who, Microsoft? I could easily poll myself, and the poll would show that 100% of PCs run Linux or *BSD better than Windows. And in the case of FreeBSD, people have kept servers running for years without rebooting. I'm sure the other BSDs and Linux aren't far off.



I personally used it constantly on an old laptop a few years back, and I know I'll get flamed for this, but it was actually quite quick and responsive. More than XP or Vista, but that's not saying much, is it?

I think the best comment that I've seen was earlier in this thread - where someone mentioned words to the effect "if only Apple had acted sooner, we'd all be using Mac's now".

Truer words were never spoken - every business runs on sales, and it's the marketing that encourages the sales. But once you've achieved market dominance it's tough to be unseated.

Please follow the rules when posting
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=18408

English isn't my native idiom, I'll try my best.

Initially It's necessary to understand why IBM developed UNIX to understand Linux.
Unix was developed for companies that couldn't pay the costs of a mainframe, but with the same use structure: programmers, technicians, operators, etc.
The difference between Linux and Unix is just the platform, PC, but the structure is the same, it requests programmers, operators, etc., It's not for end users. They are trying to change this, but it still takes time.

One swim be done to change that, it can happen in a reverse way as it happened with OS/2, there were not programs developed. Linux has a lot of programs with the same purpose, but without any standard and support.

Windows was especially developed for end users. With the NT development It's became also corporate.

MS has more than 20 years of experience, it is an open and easy platform for developers, at the begining created more problems than solutions. Besides the fragility of the system, programs badly done and system 16 bits almost killed It. With Windows 2000 those problems were almost resolved and stiller with XP.

It is an easy system that it doesn't request the users' a lot of knowledge, intuitive, and this is also a problem, because computer is a tool, it is necessary training, learning.

Summarizing, they cannot be compared because historically the purposes are different and MS is M$ because always got to notice the users' expectations. Like or no, it was always besides these expectations, and mainly a fantastic capacity of recovering of the own mistakes.

jaws75,
you are perfectly free to expose your ideas and opinions on the matter, EXACTLY like Hasta la Vista and everyone else is.

Flaming other members is both unnecessary and unpolite.

You might want to re-read rules:
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=18408

expecially points 7a and 7b:


and comply with them.

jaclaz

Actually, I was under the impression that they chose a Linux platform because it is more robust, reliable, and secure than Windows (although some might argue, and I might agree, that FreeBSD is more robust, reliable, and secure than Linux).

Useless? I don't think so. It's nice for anyone when you don't need 128mb of graphics ram to run the OS fully. It's also nice when, with or without the graphics ram, the OS doesn't crash constantly. Windows is more popular not because of ease of use. If things were popular due to that, Mac OS X would be the standard. Or even something like PC-BSD, which is based on FreeBSD, but is as easy or easier to run than Windows and OS X. And Ubuntu isn't far behind, too.

It is popular because it comes on computers. The average PC user doesn't know the difference between Windows, Linux, BSD, and Mac. The average PC user runs Windows because that's what came with their new Dell. It comes on their new Dell because Windows got popular right at the right time. And every new Dell increases Microsoft's market share. It is a viscous cycle. Linux, BSD, and OS X can't get popular because no one knows about them (well, maybe not OS X) and they don't come on computers. And they don't come on computers 'cause they're not popular.

Next year will not be the year of Linux. Nor will 2008, 2009, or 2010. It probably will never be popular on the desktop PC. But not because it is inferior to Windows.

They don't come on computers for sale to the masses because of a few important things. 1: The kernal was made to be modified at the user level (can you imagine the tech support nightmare of trying to support anyone's and everyone's changes), and ...2: Because they are free or open source.

The tech support for a free product couldn't be aforded when you can't make any money on it. Besides, even if they put a version of Linux (or any other unix based system) on a system for wide spread sale to the masses there would still be too many free alternatives of that same OS that offered too much competition and you would end up with exactly the same conversations about it.

Its not because they aren't popular, but instead because they are not wide spread to the masses because they aren't marketed, and they aren't marketed because there is no real profit to be made from them because they or the alternatives to them are free. It would be kind of difficult to base the profit for a company on a version of Linux for example when the competiton is free. It would be different if it could be marketed effectively to the masses but ya just can't do it.

And it isn't because its inferior, its just not a marketable product that a company can base long term survival on, maybe in a niche market but not to the masses.

Where there is profit, there is support, development, and products available to enhance the original product. And this is the reason that free ware type OS's are not a viable alternative to Windows for the masses because that comprehensive support and development base just isn't there and its not there because there is no long term sustainable profit base.

If companies had figured out a way to base long term profit on a free OS don't you think they would have done it by now? Companies sell what makes them money, and Windows makes them money. It isn't the fault of MS as they just competed in the free enterprise system like everyone is able to do. Its actually the fault of the alternative OS system community, like the Linux/unix flavors, by trying to keep the systems open source or free that made them less attractive as a profit base.

Sorry, but you are missing a point here, FREE SOFTWARE means "free as in freedom", not necessarily "free of charge".

Support for FREE SOFTWARE is normally offered as a "pay for service", as well as the actual software can be charged for the services of compiling and integrating it, companies like RedHat and Mandriva actually "live" with that:
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/client/
http://www.mandriva.com/en/linux/2007/discovery
http://store.mandriva.com/product_info.php?products_id=336

The fact that the same or a very similar product is provided free of charge and WITHOUT support does not mean that companies cannot get paid for their work.

jaclaz

On the contray I did get the point. I'm not saying that free software is without its encumberances, however, you will notice that those companies support the product them selves, not systems from other companies, and thats what matters because thats what the masses see, they buy systems (computers) from Dell for example. The masses buy complete systems, they don't just call Dell and say "hey I want to buy an OS"...no...they call Dell and say "I want to buy a computer", or they walk into a store somewhere and do the same thing....and thats where the sustaining profit base is from and thats what the companies will support and develope for, what the masses buy.

I would like to second that. Experience from the people I know, most of them are would be hardly able to reinstall Windows from te standard CD. Or why do we have all this Recovery-Partitions and -CDs where the user has to do nothing (like partitioning the hdd, searching the drivers, etc.) except putting his name in some form.

ok i think this has run its course,

Closed