Vista bug free?

Hmm, I haven't replied to this thread in a while, but I much prefer the UI in Vista over the UI in XP. The integrated search is also epic win (compared to XP's slow, and very stupid search). The node-based folder menu (on top), where you can click the node you would like to go back to, is also very good. XP never offered me that kind of thing. I had to click in the textbox, remove the path to the folder I wanted, and press enter.

IMO, flexibility is not the key. Rather, standardizing a good standard should be held higher in priority. If you would like a new UI feature to be added, you'd do well to try and promote that UI paradigm so that many people enjoy using it, and so it gets integrated into the software in the future.

Now that I'm done with my main points, I'll note a few things I've noticed that I really like and dislike about Vista.

Likes:

#1 - When you want to change the filename, it no longer highlights the extension as well. It means I can save myself a bunch of clicks when I'm renaming certain parts of files by hand. This may not be a common situation for every user, but it is for me, since I'm very anal about file organization. I've considered writing a program to handle regular expressions, but haven't gotten around to doing it.

#2 - Left arrow and right arrow = go down a node and go up a node. Not "go to previous folder that I visited". To some people, this may be a disadvantage, but for me, it's a clear advantage. If I want to navigate multiple folders and switch between them, I open multiple explorer windows. But in each of my explorer windows, I can navigate very freely up a hierarchy via the back and forward side buttons on my mouse (for quick navigation).

#3 - Start menu is always sorted alphabetically. Saves me a few clicks. 'Nuff said.

#4 - Sleep feature works very well and is quick to come back up.

#5 - No driver installs! Vista detects pretty much all of my hardware. The only drivers I install now are for my video card. I'm very happy with this, because it means that I can automatically connect to the internet on a fresh format and reinstall.

#6 - The UI is much prettier and feels more dynamic, from the icons, to the folder layout.

#7 - Windows Update (and Microsoft Update too for Office and Visual Studio, I think) is integrated into the operating system so I no longer have to update with a web browser, and IE at that. Needless to say, there is now no need to ever run IE.

#8 - No more thumbs.db caching to disable. What a terrible caching method, and one that has caused a bunch of my folders to get scattered database files everywhere (before I knew what it was and promptly turned it off in XP).

Dislikes:

#1 - Everytime I copy a damn file, it won't give me the "details view" by default. I don't want that unnecessary extra click. I want to know the details now!

#2 - My folder views keep changing when I least expect them to. It may just be my user stupidity, but they don't stick. Is there a formal way to set the views aside from just clicking the Views combobox and selecting one for a specific folder?

#3 - The file copy window sits at 0 seconds for a short delay. I've read that this delay is a result of committing the file copy to disk from cache. Unfortunately, it means that when I'm copying small files, the length of this delay sometimes exceeds the length of the copy itself!

#4 - I'm still not used to "Programs and Features". I always spend 10 seconds looking for "Add and Remove Programs" and it's not there. Oh well. I'll just have to get used to it. For the record, I'm the type of guy that always switches just this layout to "Classic View", whether it be XP (which is still different from previous Microsoft operating systems) or Vista.

#5 - Windows Vista picture viewer is crap. I'd take XP's picture viewer anyday. Vista's picture viewer can't even open .GIF files. The first time I saw this, I was like, "are you fucking kidding me?" There's no need to optimize a picture viewer by removing compatibility with a certain file type.
 
You can standardize by making something a default with other options existing parallel to the standard. Your argument could be used to say Firefox should be disallowed from being installed because IE should be enforced as a standard.

Edit:
You don't make a standard by forcing it down people's throats. You set defaults and options, and a standard emerges by virtue of it being the best.
 
infornographer said:
You can standardize by making something a default with other options existing parallel to the standard. Your argument could be used to say Firefox should be disallowed from being installed because IE should be enforced as a standard.

Edit:
You don't make a standard by forcing it down people's throats. You set defaults and options, and a standard emerges by virtue of it being the best.
Click to expand...

I disagree. To make a system entirely modular is "cool", but by no means required. Windows is not Linux where you can just recompile and use a different kernel. There are certain core features that should be standardized, much like we have a set of core libraries in C++ programming, Java, C#. Similarly, I find the UI of an operating system to be, albeit at a high level, something where standards should be enforced. The problem is in enforcing a fairly flexible and usable standard. I don't think Vista has failed there.

Edit: For those that are reading this thread, I have updated my last post with a list of likes and dislikes.
 
You don't like UI in Vista, that's cool. Having the option to revert to the XP style would have been nice but critical is up for debate.

Is there any new hardware or software that isn't supported in Vista? Vista support is excellent now. You're thinking like its a year ago.

You don't seem to see much value in Vista. I don't think that Vista is the bee knees but to not use it on a new Windows system just makes little sense. Like you said, why the heck would I put XP on a system with a top of the line motherboard for a high end gaming rig? Almost nobody on these forms does it and most of us know a thing or two about PCs.
 
Cyrilix said:
I disagree. To make a system entirely modular is "cool", but by no means required. Windows is not Linux where you can just recompile and use a different kernel. There are certain core features that should be standardized, much like we have a set of core libraries in C++ programming, Java, C#. Similarly, I find the UI of an operating system to be, albeit at a high level, something where standards should be enforced. The problem is in enforcing a fairly flexible and usable standard. I don't think Vista has failed there.

Edit: For those that are reading this thread, I have updated my last post with a list of likes and dislikes.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about modularity. Their own UI implementation history is full of options to allow for previous behavior. Even in Vista they did this with Windows Classic and elsewhere, but they stopped short for no good reason.
 
Cyrilix,

Good list of likes and dislikes! The folder view changing issue is something that bugs me too but XP seems to have the same problem.

Have you updated to Windows Live Photo Gallery?
 
heatlesssun said:
Cyrilix,

Good list of likes and dislikes! The folder view changing issue is something that bugs me too but XP seems to have the same problem.

Have you updated to Windows Live Photo Gallery?
Click to expand...

I did not know such a thing existed... am trying it now.

Edit: And I'm glad it works. If only both this and Windows Live Messenger were packaged as the defaults instead of the heavily stripped down current defaults, this would make two fewer things I'd have to install and think about. :)
 
Microsoft acquired Sysinternals and Process Explorer with it. Why, why why why with all the integration of features, did they not integrate process explorer?? : ) Task manager is such a POS and never changes. They could've had the defaults of Process Explorer set to look familiar to people who only know task manager.
 
infornographer said:
Microsoft acquired Sysinternals and Process Explorer with it. Why, why why why with all the integration of features, did they not integrate process explorer?? : ) Task manager is such a POS and never changes. They could've had the defaults of Process Explorer set to look familiar to people who only know task manager.
Click to expand...

First you complain about too many new features in Vista - now you're complaining about not enough features in Vista. Make up your melon :)
 
Cyrilix said:
#2 - Left arrow and right arrow = go down a node and go up a node. Not "go to previous folder that I visited".
Click to expand...

Is that how it works? I just tested it:

C:\
C:\Windows
C:\Users\Default
Press Back -> C:\Windows
 
I got Vista for my new system and it works great. I hated UAC for the first two days until I figured how to work with it, and now I absolutely love it. The only thing I don't like is that I haven't found how to customize it yet. For example: How do you tell it to block certain actions, but not others. I think the only next step would be to include the ability to "lock" programs - those programs would always run in "admin" mode without showing the UAC but it would show one of those popups if any edits were attempted on said program (say if a virus tried replacing it with itself to gain access).

Either way, I love Vista now. It took Microsoft over a decade to figure out that they should stop putting "My " in front of things like Apple puts "i" in front of stuff ("My Computer" "My Documents" "My Music").

Also, most compatability issues are NOT with XP. It's actually applications with bits of code that were deprecated in XP, but still there, and finally removed in Vista. People writing "correct" apps for XP will see that they port nicely to Vista.
 
ethraax said:
Also, most compatability issues are NOT with XP. It's actually applications with bits of code that were deprecated in XP, but still there, and finally removed in Vista. People writing "correct" apps for XP will see that they port nicely to Vista.
Click to expand...

Good point. If people stick to the documented APIs then there's very little chance that there will be any problems in future versions of Windows, unless it's something intrinsically version-dependent like system utilities - it's very important to Microsoft that things keep working, and you can guarantee they've tested it thoroughly and it's unlikely that anything major will have slipped through the net. However, there are many cases where programmers do strange things like fiddling around in other applications' memory spaces and calling undocumented functions which are extremely likely to fail when the OS changes. Programmers ought not to be doing such things, and if they do and it breaks, it's hardly Microsoft's fault. In fact, Microsoft often writes compatibility shims to allow the more common hacks to keep working.
 
heatlesssun,

Thanks for the reply. I actually agree with most of your points. However, we do have to add some context. I don't think anyone would disagree that Vista has some great new features (e.g., SuperFetch, Search, etc.), and that on a modern system, one wouldn't really notice the performance impact. In practice, however, and I only need to point to Windows Server 2008, they do have a performance impact, in the area of 20%!! I find that completely unacceptable, especially if these services are enabled by default. You mentioned that Windows Server 2008 is a newer OS, but my understanding is that with SP1, much of the codebase is the same, including the kernel. I too would expect it to be a little faster, but 20%!??

At the end of the day, there is more to it than having an OS with all these new features (some great, some not so great). However, arguably drastic changes to things such as the UI, also have a performance impact. It's hard to directly measure this sort of performance impact, but I argue that it exists, and is a lot larger than most people are letting on. I don't dispute that learning a new OS will take time, but once again, if the new OS is compared to an OS that is "good enough", some people will simply ask, "what's the point?"

With that being said, Vista's days are already numbered with the anticipated release of Windows 7 sometime in 2009/2010. And with XP being "good enough", regardless of the numerous advantages that Vista offers, it doesn't seem likely that there will be a lot of excitement to move up to Vista, especially if it doesn't offer that much more than XP.
 
TechieSooner: Well after reading that, I know for sure this thread went to crap.
Uh, you don't even know what I'm talking about. I'd rather not change this thread into an XP internals tweaking topic, but if you'd like some tips, I'd be glad to share via PM. : p

calebb: First you complain about too many new features in Vista - now you're complaining about not enough features in Vista. Make up your melon.
I was complaining particularly about how too many features are on by default and how some of them are crammed down your throat, but yeah. If they acquire something as good as process explorer long before Vista comes along, it should be in the windows folder by default.

I'll let Fulgore take it from here. I agree with everything he's said.
 
No operating system is bug free. :rolleyes:

The Vista's security alone makes it the version of Windows you should be using, especially if you are buying a new system.
 
The vast majority of bugs to be encountered aren't actually Vista. It's drivers. Those make the difference between a great experience and a poor one. And Vista gets blamed.

With good drivers Vista is rock solid.
 
Fulgore,

Thanks for your response. I've seen the numbers you've mentioned about Windows Server 2008. I'd really like to how it works in day to day operation as a desktop OS. I'm setting up some Windows Server 2008 installs. I'm thinking about adding a drive to the sig rig with 2008 on it and see how it looks. One big thing for me would be how 2008 works with laptops. This is one area were Vista is dramatically better from my experience. I almost never have to reboot my tablet pc going in and out of sleep several times a day for weeks. This never worked well on the 4 XP laptops I have.

Yes, Windows 7 will be around in two years and those who skipped Vista are probably going to have a tougher time with it. 7 isn't going to be as big of an architectural change as Vista. The driver model will be the same if not totally upwards compatible. Drivers were the Achilles heel of Vista at release and Microsoft can't afford another driver mess like Vista again. This will make Windows 7 migrations much easier for people already on Vista, but it should benefit everyone because at this point there’s no lack of Vista drivers.

I think Windows 7 will be a much smoother roll out as it will not have so many architectural changes and I figure there’s going to be at least a couple of wiz bang got to have new features.
 
infornographer said:
Windows 7 ftw. That will be my OS of choice and probably its RTM will mark the day I rebuild my computer.
Click to expand...

/me takes note of the post above, date, time, etc... we're gonna hold you to that. :)

But now I have to ask: what prompted this rather sudden fondness of an OS that has barely reached any significant milestones in its development process? Did you see some video on YouTube that makes it a must-have, even 2 years or so before it's released, or what? I'm curious...
 
heatlessun,

I couldn't agree more with you with regards to the likely outcome with Windows 7. I am also really hoping that Microsoft implements the same modular architecture that they did with Windows Server 2008.

Some people have mentioned that Vista's problems are not necessarily OS related, but instead driver related. That's credible to an extent (e.g., recent reports of ~29% of Vista's crashes due to nVidia drivers, etc.), but once again, I point to the 20% performance delta with Windows Server 2008 on the same hardware.

Some people have also mentioned Vista's security architecture. I agree, it is "better" than XP, but is it "that much better"? XP has been receiving updates over the past 7 years, and I argue that it's "good enough", especially with much of Vista's security features being ported to XP. Yes, you're not going to get UAC, or Vista x64's advanced memory features, but using one OS or the other still has trade-off's that are not as clear, as I've previously mentioned.

Anyways, with regards to Windows Server 2008 on your main system, I have no doubt that it is going to perform great, if not better than Vista. Of course, there will be some work required to get it running, but as long as you follow the numerous guides available, things should go fairly smoothly. Nonetheless, you also have to expect certain incompatibilities, and missing features (e.g., Windows Media Center, Windows SideBar, Tablet PC, etc.), but that runs with the territory, and role of that specific PC. Certain PC's have certain uses. My HTPC (not in sig) for example, is running Vista Ultimate SP1, which is a necessity for that role (especially with Windows Media Center). I wouldn't dare run Windows XP or Server 2008 on it.

In terms of laptop performance, most of the comments I've read on the numerous guides and blog posts speak very positively about their experiences. For developers, especially, Windows 2008 "Workstation" is the way to go apparently. I don't think I've read a single review which mentions anything negative about overall system performance, so that says a lot. Also, the power management features and settings are practically identical to those of Vista (with some minor adjustable changes in some settings, e.g., don't turn-off hard drive after 20 minutes, etc.).

At the end of the day, "good enough" still stands, especially if you're trying to decide what uses you'll have for any particular computer.
 
Joe Average said:
/me takes note of the post above, date, time, etc... we're gonna hold you to that. :)

But now I have to ask: what prompted this rather sudden fondness of an OS that has barely reached any significant milestones in its development process? Did you see some video on YouTube that makes it a must-have, even 2 years or so before it's released, or what? I'm curious...
Click to expand...

I was using Vista when it was beta as well. I wanted to like Vista and still do, but XP just caters to my preferences in ways that Vista can't be hacked to fulfill (translation for you: I'm a nitpicker). I'm going to give it another shot when Windows 7 comes along. I'm pretty sure they will do a lot more than add a new calculator, paintbrush, and new programmer modes. It will also have a foundation of 2 years of Vista discoveries in support and modding.
 
infornographer said:
I was using Vista when it was beta as well. I wanted to like Vista and still do, but XP just caters to my preferences in ways that Vista can't be hacked to fulfill (translation for you: I'm a nitpicker). I'm going to give it another shot when Windows 7 comes along. I'm pretty sure they will do a lot more than add a new calculator, paintbrush, and new programmer modes. It will also have a foundation of 2 years of Vista discoveries in support and modding.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you should give 2K8 a shot and skip Vista altogether then. On your hardware 2K8 will leave Vista in the dust, obviously because most of the stuff is disabled by default - and that's what you want, right?

As for nitpicking, I've been gutting out Windows for decades, nothing new there. :p I've written countless guides all over the place on multiple forums, and I have several stickies here as well (2 about Vista even), so yeah... there's a few of us floating around since all this stuff got started. :)

But give 2K8 a shot sometime. It's got the free trial from Microsoft. I think you'll be very pleasantly surprised at just how freakin' fast and snappy it is right from the installation compared to Vista (any edition). I know I was, but for the present time I have to stick with 2K3 x64 because of - go figure - driver issues with DirectSound under Vista/2K8. The software I use hasn't been adequately updated for the "new" style sound subsystem in Vista/2K8 and probably won't be for some time, so... I'll stick with 2K3 x64 or XP x64 for some time to come.
 
2k8 still has the sources of my nitpicking in there. I'd end up using a 3rd party file manager. Windows 7 could be a compelling enough reason to switch if they do some awesome stuff with it.

I have XP SP3 so well tuned, and honestly much of the benefit I can concede would be in having more ram for Vista/2k8. Being on DDR1 and AGP makes an upgrade when everything is working great for my needs absolutely pointless and a waste of future upgrade money.

I'm a serious hawk with process explorer and hijackthis, and I'm the only one who has access to this computer.. so I personally don't need UAC (just my opinion, mind you). Not to mention, most of the really tempting Vista stuff that I love has already migrated over to XP, like the enhanced fonts, the office interface, all of the new .net framework, modded directx10, and visual styles. It's Microsoft's own fault for being so nice to XP users.

I'm waiting for the vapor of Windows 7 to coalesce into an offer I can't refuse. ; )

Edit:
http://windows7news.com/2008/02/22/of-vista-and-windows-7/
He put it best.

.. and the UI may end up getting a further major overhaul with Windows 7, which may address my current era nitpicking in a round about way:

The team responsible for the Windows 7 graphical user interface is planning to include several new User Interface (UI) concepts into the Windows 7 platform. One of them is the graphical user interface widget Ribbon which users of Microsoft Office 2007 experienced first hand. Microsoft refers to the implementation as the Office Fluent Ribbon which basically describes the menu bar at the top.

Users might have noticed that most options are available right in the menu and that users do not have to search in various submenus anymore to access those functions.

Long Zheng mentioned that Microsoft’s goal is to switch from the Win32 UI framework from Window 95 to a more lightweight, high performance markup-based UI framework.

The information became available through a Microsoft job post where they were looking for Senior Technical Leader to “lead the effort to update the Windows 7 platform with the latest advancements in User Interface design and to bring the Ribbon, Jewel, and other new UI concepts to the Windows platform.”
Click to expand...
Source: http://windows7news.com/2008/03/23/new-ui-concepts-to-debut-in-windows-7/
 
Mithent said:
Is that how it works? I just tested it:

C:\
C:\Windows
C:\Users\Default
Press Back -> C:\Windows
Click to expand...

Hmm. You are right. I seem to be quite confused. :(

Infornographer said:
Windows 7 ftw. That will be my OS of choice and probably its RTM will mark the day I rebuild my computer.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't count on it. A bit of hearsay spreads around the net, and suddenly everyone is thinking Windows 7 is going to be the second coming of Jesus.
 
I sure hope not because I'm not an xian lol (but let's not start in on religion)

I see Windows 7 as possibly bringing some more of what was promised in Vista. That's all. It should have a much more successful release by building on the improvements made upon Vista over those 2 years.

edit: That job posting by Microsoft doesn't count as hearsay, FYI.
 
ethraax said:
The only thing I don't like is that I haven't found how to customize it yet. For example: How do you tell it to block certain actions, but not others.
Click to expand...
That would be NICE, but it would also please the folks who bring us malware...
Opens up security holes.

It either needs to be an "all or nothing" situation- otherwise you DO start opening up holes.

Joe Average said:
But now I have to ask: what prompted this rather sudden fondness of an OS that has barely reached any significant milestones in its development process? Did you see some video on YouTube that makes it a must-have, even 2 years or so before it's released, or what? I'm curious...
Click to expand...
From what I've seen of Windows 7 I am not impressed at all... Very minor changes... Granted it is early yet.
 
Cyrilix said:
Hmm. You are right. I seem to be quite confused. :(
Click to expand...

Well, at least you can always get back up to any folder you like anyway!

I do find it puzzling that so many people go on about how Vista is the worst OS ever, but Windows 7 will be fantastic. Since these are often the same people who moan about Vista being bloated and having DRM, I'm not sure what they're imagining.. Windows 7 will have features and DRM removed? I don't think so. Since it seems like it's going to be an update to Vista, it will at least inherit Vista's driver compatibility (XP mostly inherited that of Windows 2000).
 
You don't seem to be following the whole thread. I've made some concessions during the last several pages, and I never said Vista was the worst OS ever. I said it had some problems. Why is that treason to you?
 
I love how people are like "and there's other problems but it's not worth my time to go into them" and other people are like "you don't understand why Vista's good, but it's not worth my time to show you why I'm right". :D

I only read like half of the first page... then I quit. Oy!

FTR, I've used Vista for almost a year, am satisfied. :)
 
General Crespin said:
I love how people are like "and there's other problems but it's not worth my time to go into them" and other people are like "you don't understand why Vista's good, but it's not worth my time to show you why I'm right". :D
Click to expand...

This is the internet, where something can only be the best thing ever or totally suck. :D
 
Fulgore,

I started looking around at more Vista vs Server 2008 performance numbers. Does sound interesting. I'd like to do some real world testing however with TMPGEnc and some games. Most of the stuff I saw was synthetic benchmarks, and those are very hit or miss in terms of gauging real world performance.

But as you pointed out, missing things like tablet and media center functionality really don’t make it a desktop replacement. Both of my laptops are convertible tablets and Media Center is like mission critical for my personal desktops! Looking at the numbers so far, there’s probably some improvement that real world apps would see, but nothing probably noticeable. By the time you take a benchmark and turn it into real world performance, you tend to see maybe half of what the benchmark would indicate, maybe less.
 
infornographer said:
I sure hope not because I'm not an xian lol (but let's not start in on religion)

I see Windows 7 as possibly bringing some more of what was promised in Vista. That's all. It should have a much more successful release by building on the improvements made upon Vista over those 2 years.

edit: That job posting by Microsoft doesn't count as hearsay, FYI.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you there.
 
Never said I hated it, but I'd certainly never switch on the basis of that video, though it would make me laugh for all the wrong reasons.
 
I'm giving Vista another chance. I'm updating it right now... and I'm not going to tweak it. hmm.. This will be the most geeky analogy of all time but here goes:

I loved AD&D in middle school when it was 2nd edition. It was a serious pain, but we built so many house rules and custom content until it rocked. Then came 3rd edition. It was actually better, but I had 2nd so modded that I couldn't see it and quit playing all together. ... yep. That's about as geeky as it gets.

That's how Vista is for me. I knew how to tweak XP so heavily and had everything the way I wanted it. I wasn't used to the basic system itself having core services and shell extensions that are actually worthy of my time. I saw Vista as just a more complicated OS to tear apart and rebuild with custom apps. Who knows, I could be wrong. I'm going to try to drink the Kool Aid of Vista and see why I sounded so unreasonable from your point of view.
 
^^^ Like others have said though: 1GB of RAM isn't enough for Vista to do its thing, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top