I'm sick of listening to people bash Vista in the IT world

[Tower]

I heard the same rhetoric when XP came out; "Windows 2000 is faster, cleaner, sleeker. Why do I need a green start button and a different control panel? XP contains the same security features and codebase, why upgrade?"

Well, now it's as if all those technology trolls are now running XP and hating on Vista. Will it take Windows 7 to get them to crawl to Vista, only to hate Windows 7?

We can go on and on about the advantages of XP over Vista, the features of Vista and why it is/isn't worth upgrading, but seriously, it's like people are just jumping on the hate bandwagon.

So far, the largest complaint is that Vista is too hardware demanding. Well, the Operating System is linking dlls to support every application you may want to run, all the way back to Windows 95. Nevermind the fact that almost any legacy application will run, let's focus on how slow it is.

Oh, and OS X is so zippy--despite the fact that they cut support for OS 9 and earlier apps running natively--I wonder where all that speed comes from.

Sigh.

Anyone else sick to death of this? I work in IT, and this is all I hear, day in and day out.

 

[Met-AL]

Yep.

 

[schapman]

I'm in IT (developer)..

Right now I have a vista box, an xp box, and a linux box right in front of me.

They all have their uses and benefits. Now to convince the boss to buy me a Mac

 

[pxc]

Oh, and OS X is so zippy--despite the fact that they cut support for OS 9 and earlier apps running natively

Yep, OS X is very zippy. It's not so much that Apple dumped classic that sped it up (that had nothing to do with native application speed), it's that Apple didn't try to bloat up the OS. Don't get me wrong, Vista is pretty nice on modern hardware with at least 2GB of memory and most of my systems at home run it, but Microsoft and hardware manufacturers are pushing towards upgrades: new systems and upgrades are more sales for manufacturers and new systems are new Vista license sales. It drives the industry, but it's not so great for end users. There are many low end systems sold that run Vista very poorly.

I wouldn't mind having Vista at work, but even I don't think it's a good idea right now. Rolling it out company-wide would give no benefits over the current XP systems. Most users in the company do not have Internet access and we have security software on the desktop and Exchange server. Since only Dells are purchased here, they will stick with XP probably well into Windows 7 release as long as Dell keeps selling it as a downgrade or whatever.

 

[XOR != OR]

A lot of it is just good business sense; we have xp right now. It works well enough for our purposes. In fact, the only reason to upgrade is because support for xp will be cut.

There are no compelling features of vista to force the migration. It simply doesn't make business sense to move to it for most folks, and they resent MS forcing the issue.

 

[panhead]

So far, the largest complaint is that Vista is too hardware demanding.

My largest complaint with Vista is the 'protected process' architecture. This has turned the PC into a media appliance, added additional code bloat and security vuneralblities. If Vista didn't have this architecture, I would have installed it last year. As for now, my free copy of Vista Ultimate sits in the desk drawer. By the way Windows 7 is going to have this stupid DRM architecture also.

http://disparitybit.supersized.org/...t-Why-Protected-Processes-are-a-Bad-Idea.html

 

[JC634]

I use a high-end CAD system at work. The developers have optimized it for use in XP. In their development of a Vista version, the latest I have heard is that they experience an ~ 40% decrease in performance. Simply because Vista wants ALL code to talk to it 1st, not directly to the HW.

I use Vista at home and I do not regret it for a moment. At work, no way. At least not for quite some time.

Also, our IT guy has compatibility issues with other SW we use, as well as simple things like killing of print spoolers that MS acknowledges, but has no fix for.

So for me: Vista at home, XP at work. There is simply no compelling reason for our company to upgrade their OS's.

 

[TechieSooner]

I personally love Vista.

However, I am not eager to roll out Vista at work.
Dell is still able to ship XP preinstalled after June 30, it's just that everything now ships with a Vista license too.

Would love Vista at work, but the massive amounts of testing would be ridiculous... too much work and time than I have to put into it.

That- and users hate change. Mine bitch enough without throwing Vista in front of them.

 

[mcravenufo]

Well, the Operating System is linking dlls to support every application you may want to run, all the way back to Windows 95. Nevermind the fact that almost any legacy application will run, let's focus on how slow it is.

I have Vista x64 at home and I prefer it over XP.

However, I do have to mention that I can't get some applications to install or even to start installing for that matter. Ones that I did get to install I had to search the internet for workarounds.

 

[devil22]

I've used Vista, and have no complaints, works better and faster than XP imo and XP was already damn good, and I'm loving 64-bit computing which wasn't very practical with XP-64, and so on. With Vista bashers, you get the people who have some minor issue that is a show-stopper for them, but that's true of EVERY OS for SOME people, this is obvious yet they act like they don't know it, and then you get the DRM trolls with their important sounding complaints that don't hold water (DRM does nothing unless you run DRM'ed media, so if you don't like DRM just don't use it and it will be similar to other OSes without DRM), and then there's the people that just repeat crap because they heard it on the internet and haven't figured out 99% of the internet is BS... Basically my advice is: Get used to it, because ignorance will always be greater (by volume) than truth.

 

[panhead]

(DRM does nothing unless you run DRM'ed media, so if you don't like DRM just don't use it and it will be similar to other OSes without DRM)

Hate to tell you but...
The protected process code is loaded everytime you boot Vista. It is in the kernel, the kernel will perform protected process checks everytime you launch a process. Hackers will exploit this and your anti-virus software will not be able to help you.
Microsoft's attempt at hiding 'premium content' has fundamentally changed the open architecture of the PC. It now cost more to develop drivers, hardware, software, etc and the end user pays for it. And for what..to allow HD/BR playback. I doubt there are more than 5% of Vista users with HD/BR players and of them half don't have the HDCP monitors to watch 'premium content'

 

[devil22]

Hate to tell you but...
The protected process code is loaded everytime you boot Vista. It is in the kernel, the kernel will perform protected process checks everytime you launch a process. Hackers will exploit this and your anti-virus software will not be able to help you.

Of course the kernel checks to see if a process is a protected process, how else could it possibly know what to allow/deny? And if hackers will exploit this, why haven't they already? They've had a year and a half so where is all the malware that can't be detected by antivirus programs to back up your gloom and doom anti-Vista bs?

Microsoft's attempt at hiding 'premium content' has fundamentally changed the open architecture of the PC. It now cost more to develop drivers, hardware, software, etc and the end user pays for it.

You have a source that shows that non-DRM related 'drivers, hardware, software, etc' cost more because of DRM? Of course not, DRM trolls never have anything more than doom and gloom innuendo.

And for what..to allow HD/BR playback. I doubt there are more than 5% of Vista users with HD/BR players and of them half don't have the HDCP monitors to watch 'premium content'

Have any figures that you didn't just pull out of your ass? Besides, engineering OSes is about future-proofing, Vista could be in use on a majority of computers 10 years from now when most people would have the required hardware for blu-ray stuff.

 

[legendz411]

Yep.

Yes.

 

[panhead]

Of course the kernel checks to see if a process is a protected process, how else could it possibly know what to allow/deny? And if hackers will exploit this, why haven't they already? They've had a year and a half so where is all the malware that can't be detected by antivirus programs to back up your gloom and doom anti-Vista bs?

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/07/08/13/ati-driver-flaw-leaves-vista-kernel-open-to-attacks

Proof of Concept
http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=35

http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34

You have a source that shows that non-DRM related 'drivers, hardware, software, etc' cost more because of DRM? Of course not, DRM trolls never have anything more than doom and gloom innuendo.

Vista required a rewite of all drivers. Who do you think paid for it? Yes the customers paid.

Have any figures that you didn't just pull out of your ass? Besides, engineering OSes is about future-proofing, Vista could be in use on a majority of computers 10 years from now when most people would have the required hardware for blu-ray stuff.

Vista mainstream support ends in 4/10/2012, less than 4 years so 10 years from now no one will be running Vista. I don't think MS will be patching Vista in 2018. Yes, I did just pull those percentages out of my a$$. Do you have any figures?

Vista brings a lot of improvments to Windows, unfortunally it also has 'protected processes'. No other OS has this concept. Ask yourself why.

 

[TechieSooner]

And if hackers will exploit this, why haven't they already? They've had a year and a half so where is all the malware that can't be detected by antivirus programs to back up your gloom and doom anti-Vista bs?

They've had more than that... If you count the RCs, given it has changed a little bit since then, but the majority of things have remained the same.

Proof of Concept

LMAO... I get so sick of this.
What's produced in the lab environment != real world results.

The FACT of the matter, is nobody has exploited this to-date.

Vista required a rewite of all drivers. Who do you think paid for it? Yes the customers paid.

How the hell come many of my XP drivers still work in Vista? You= fail.

And IMO, if the costs force some of this shitty little developers out the window- good riddance.

Vista mainstream support ends in 4/10/2012, less than 4 years so 10 years from now no one will be running Vista.

This is a bullshit argument.

Mainstream support for Windows 2000 ended in 2005- still plenty of folks running it.

 

[der_jackal]

*taps foot waiting for the inevitable thread lock worthy post*

 

[Private_Ops]

Mainstream support for Windows 2000 ended in 2005- still plenty of folks running it.

Thats for sure, my teacher uses it at school (IT class). We dual boot all the computers with Linux and windows since there are a few programs that either don't work in wine or don't have suitable Linux alternatives.

 

[Mithent]

Vista mainstream support ends in 4/10/2012, less than 4 years so 10 years from now no one will be running Vista. I don't think MS will be patching Vista in 2018.

Extended support is scheduled for ending on 11/04/2017, but these dates often get extended. That's not really the point though - Vista is the new Windows platform that Windows 7 will be based upon.

I guess it can be seen as a version of Intel's 'tick-tock'; 2000 tick, XP tock. Vista tick, Windows 7 tock.

 

[devil22]

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/07/08/13/ati-driver-flaw-leaves-vista-kernel-open-to-attacks

This has nothing to do with anything, it's just a flaw in a driver, and is unrelated to protected processes. Don't post random links without knowing what they are, you just waste everybody's time.

Proof of Concept
http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=35

http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=34

If this program can make a process protected and unprotected, so can anti-malware programs if malware starts to use it, but this is still not an example of malware using this and you have not posted any such examples. If no malware uses it after at least a year and a half it probably is not a threat but as I said it can be dealt with if it ever is used.

Vista required a rewite of all drivers. Who do you think paid for it? Yes the customers paid.

Vista drivers weren't rewritten because of DRM, stating so just shows how clueless you are.

Vista mainstream support ends in 4/10/2012, less than 4 years so 10 years from now no one will be running Vista. I don't think MS will be patching Vista in 2018.

As others have said, people will still be using Vista and Vista is the basis for Windows 7, and probably 8 too.

Yes, I did just pull those percentages out of my a$$. Do you have any figures?

What does that have to do with anything? The point, which you seem to be missing, is you should not just make up things and try to pass them off as facts.

Vista brings a lot of improvments to Windows, unfortunally it also has 'protected processes'. No other OS has this concept. Ask yourself why.

Just because Vista has something that no other OS has, it is automatically bad? Either you aren't being serious or you are completely clueless making non-sequitors like that, either way you should stop trying to BS everyone about things you know nothing about.

 

[TechieSooner]

Just because Vista has something that no other OS has, it is automatically bad?

One company in particular jumped into mind when I read that: Apple. They constantly promote their stuff based on "Nobody else does this!!!"

 

[Serpico]

Yep, OS X is very zippy. It's not so much that Apple dumped classic that sped it up (that had nothing to do with native application speed), it's that Apple didn't try to bloat up the OS. Don't get me wrong, Vista is pretty nice on modern hardware with at least 2GB of memory and most of my systems at home run it, but Microsoft and hardware manufacturers are pushing towards upgrades: new systems and upgrades are more sales for manufacturers and new systems are new Vista license sales. It drives the industry, but it's not so great for end users. There are many low end systems sold that run Vista very poorly.

I have OS X dual booting with Vista on two machines and there is no contest as to which one is faster. Fortunately things improved a great deal with SP1 and the difference closed up a lot (wtf was up with the copy speed?), but its still there. That said, I have yet to see a new low end PC that hasn't been able to run Vista reasonably well. I wouldn't even put it anywhere close to the "very poorly" catagory, but that's just what I've seen.

Yeah, you're not going to want to install Vista on a machine from three or four years ago, but if an office is going with new machines I wouldn't see a reason not to go with Vista unless there is an explicit problem with software compatibility. New OS on a new machine, I don't really see much of an issue there. Its not like XP on a brand new machine is going to be OMG significantly faster.

 

[l3ender]

I use and love Vista but in for a lot of scenarios, there's just no pull to change what you're doing for Vista. XP is rock solid and will be for awhile, and Vista (again, for a lot of scenarios) doesn't offer anything new that people need.

 

[GushpinBob]

Well, there are actually several advantages Vista has over XP in my case.

First, I use a laptop/tablet that I tote between school and home everyday. At home, I use a static IP address and at the university I use DHCP (obviously). Due to this situation I've setup Windows to use the static IP as an alternate address. Back when I was using XP on this laptop, I would have to wait about an extra minute or two at home to connect to the net as XP would sit there trying to request a DHCP address before giving up and switching to the alternate static address every time I booted or pulled the laptop out of suspend. Vista is a bit smarter in handling this situation. Now if I'm at home, Vista will take a minute to switch to the alternate address and will use that address (regardless if I reboot or standby) until I use the laptop at the school.

Second, Vista's tablet functions kick the ever loving shit out of XP Tablet PC Edition's functions. The personal handwriting recognition, much improved response (I use a shitty Finepoint pen and digitizer. Please, for the love of God buy a tablet with a Wacom digitizer instead), and better rotate functionality. Even the graphical subtleties (such as the mouse pointer change and the right-click 'ring') are somewhat of an interface improvement.

Third, Vista gives me more control over the power options on my laptop than XP. The three default power modes may seem kind of daft at first, however I can modify the profiles to tell Vista exactly what to speed up or slow down, dim or brighten, and turn on or off automatically and by how much depending on whether I'm hooked up to an external power source or battery. I can even remove power from the USB ports if I'm really anal about extending battery life.

Lastly, I just want to mention that I like having the volume snapshot feature built-in. It's nice to know that now I can right-click the hard drive icon and select any "Previous versions" of my files.

I would admit that Vista does have its faults. I hate how you cannot debug a process anymore from selecting it from the task manager. I also don't like how Microsoft axed mplayer2 from it and it seems that OneNote 2003 runs at a fraction of the speed it ran in XP. Nevertheless, Vista's pros outweigh the cons in my experience therefore I will stick with it and not move back to XP.

 

[Serpico]

Gushpin - Then there's the big security thing it has over XP. Reason #1 to have it IMO, especially for the huge number of careless users out there.

 

[XOR != OR]

Vista brings a lot of improvments to Windows, unfortunally it also has 'protected processes'. No other OS has this concept. Ask yourself why.

The concept of protected process is a good one; if I had it my way, none of my users would run an app that wasn't digitally signed with my own root cert.

As to how vista implements it, who knows. And the idea of it being in a home OS isn't a bad one either. Not good, but not bad. It's a feature; and as such, it should be availble for the end user to decide whether they wish to use it or not.

 

[itguru]

Nothing really to say that hasn't been said before on the subject. I, however, feel that if people would:

1. Put Vista on recent hardware

2. Check to make sure there hardware and software is compatible before upgrading

3. Actually try Vista for themselves rather than jumping on the "I hate vista, it is garbage bandwagon"

They would have a different opinion on vista. Every piece of software is going to have bugs when it is written. Patches will be made to fix bugs. This is just part of the development software for ANY program.

 

[itguru]

Gushpin - Then there's the big security thing it has over XP. Reason #1 to have it IMO, especially for the huge number of careless users out there.

I agree 100%.

 

[MartinX]

Going back to actual IT users.

For real IT people and their money men the decision making process on a new OS goes something like this:

1: Does it offer important features that will/could improve productivity/offer significant "Value Added"?

If no, ignore/re-evaluate later, if yes, go to two.

2: Is it stable, reliable and will it run our productivity tools without issue (Driver support, compatibility)?

If no, ignore/re-evaluate later, if yes, go to three.

3: Are the potential benefits enough to offset the cost and disruption of upgrading (licenses, new hardware, training)?

If no, ignore/re-evaluate later, if yes, Upgrade.

For a alot of businesses Vista has failed, and still fails, one or more of those tests.

Stable, mature and proven beats Shiny and new nearly every time.

 

[TechieSooner]

^^^^^^^^^^^ #3 is what I'm stuck on.
This is a decision of mine... And I just don't think #3 makes it worth it.

 

[six_storm]

I work for an IT consulting company and we have all XP clients (thank the good Lord). Even though we use Vista here in the office, we all still hate it. Vista doesn't really provide any new features for our clients to use, so why bother upgrading it? I just think that there was nothing wrong with XP in the first place.

 

[Azhar]

^^^^^^^^^^^ #3 is what I'm stuck on.
This is a decision of mine... And I just don't think #3 makes it worth it.

It's the same for my company. Cost for new licenses to deploy Vista on all our company computers. Not to mention we still have quite a few aging computers that's barely getting by with XP, nevermind Vista.

My own computer is the only one in the office with Vista Business. I'm the IT guy and I can use anything I want, but I told the boss I'm going to use Vista just to show her that everything she hears about it is pure FUD. It works just fine with anything I throw at it. It handles Office 2007 faster than XP does thanks to Superfetch. Citrix and Primavera has no complaints either.

I created a budget plan for 2008 and in that plan I emphasized that XP is reaching end-of-life, and we'll be at the mercy of OEM having licenses left to sell us. We *need* to focus on making our upcoming machines use Vista Business. Also in the budget I requested 17 old computers to be tossed and replaced with newer machines.

Thankfully she's considering it.

It's as I always say: Microsoft is simply a victim of their own sucess. XP works great, and people are loathe to risk the unknown, no thanks to FUD spreaders. Vista was conceived in an age where everyone has the internet, where everyone pretends to know everything about computers better than the average IT professional (yes panhead I'm talking to you), and unfortunately a lot of people believe them.

 

[GushpinBob]

Gushpin - Then there's the big security thing it has over XP. Reason #1 to have it IMO, especially for the huge number of careless users out there.

Dammit, how could I forget this point? I've worked on my sister's friend's mother's computer running XP and it was like like cleaning up an area that had been struck by a tornado, floods, lightning, and earthquakes all at the same time. There were viruses here and there and about a dozen adware toolbars in IE 6 (plus some P2P software like Kazaa and Limewire ). She is a person that probably needs Vista to hold on to her hand while using her computer. Also my brother is just as careless as he would constantly bork my mom's laptop by installing crapware and saying yes to every possible ActiveX download. Now he has his own laptop running Vista Business and I've yet to hear a complaint about how his computer is not working anymore (and he's usually a whiny bitch, too).

 

[Monkey God]

careless clueless home users <> IT departments.
we haven't used Vista and wont anytime soon because it doesn't give us any additional value for the costs.

 

[Mithent]

careless clueless home users <> IT departments.
we haven't used Vista and wont anytime soon because it doesn't give us any additional value for the costs.

That's entirely understandable; Vista does offer improvements over XP but it's hard to justify the costs of moving to Vista.

But I can't really see any reason to "hate" Vista; you can evaluate it and decide that you're not going to migrate to it, and you might certainly have criticisms of it, but I don't see what it's done to deserve hatred. It's fundamentally a fine OS.

 

[Monkey God]

I think most "hatred" comes from Microsoft's desire to force new versions of bloatware down our throats ever few years. Granted, thats how they make money, but I wish they'd spend more time polishing their products then re-releasing totally new versions every couple of years or so.

 

[KillaChaos]

Going back to actual IT users.

For real IT people and their money men the decision making process on a new OS goes something like this:

1: Does it offer important features that will/could improve productivity/offer significant "Value Added"?

If no, ignore/re-evaluate later, if yes, go to two.

2: Is it stable, reliable and will it run our productivity tools without issue (Driver support, compatibility)?

If no, ignore/re-evaluate later, if yes, go to three.

3: Are the potential benefits enough to offset the cost and disruption of upgrading (licenses, new hardware, training)?

If no, ignore/re-evaluate later, if yes, Upgrade.

For a alot of businesses Vista has failed, and still fails, one or more of those tests.

Stable, mature and proven beats Shiny and new nearly every time.

This is the only thought out reason why IT companies don't use Vista. Cost and drivers. Everything else is FUD and people buying into the FUD.

If you don't need it, then you shouldn't use it.

 

[legendz411]

I think these discussions need to be redirected towards the bumbling home sector.

Realisticly, there IS NO reason for most businesses to switch. Plain and simple.

The bashing needs to stop. Yes, I know I bashed too, but I actually forced my self to install it on my main desktop and I'll never go back. Granted I waited until SP1 before I sat down with it for any real time, but even when I was using RC1/2 and pre-SP1, it was no worse then XP was at launch, (for me).

 

[Monkey God]

I experimented with it at home, ended up turning off UAC because of how annoying it was (which defeats one of the main things about Vista) and all the games I tried didn't work right (SupCom - no sound) or ran slower (Bioshock/HL2:source games). There are some things about Vista I do like, but the downsides outweighed the upsides. Maybe ill wait until SP2 for home use like I did with XP.

For people who like it and get good results, more power to you. To MS for forcing people to use it (not selling it anymore) go smurf yourselves.

 

[legendz411]

I experimented with it at home, ended up turning off UAC because of how annoying it was (which defeats one of the main things about Vista) and all the games I tried didn't work right (SupCom - no sound) or ran slower (Bioshock/HL2:source games). There are some things about Vista I do like, but the downsides outweighed the upsides. Maybe ill wait until SP2 for home use like I did with XP.

For people who like it and get good results, more power to you. To MS for forcing people to use it (not selling it anymore) go smurf yourselves.

I like it for DX10, tbh.

I should have gotten 4GB of ram with how cheap they are. My fault for not doing that. So now I have to try to OC my CPU with 4 sticks of 1 gig or take the hit and order 2 sticks of 2.

 

[MartinX]

I think these discussions need to be redirected towards the bumbling home sector.

Realisticly, there IS NO reason for most businesses to switch. Plain and simple.

The bashing needs to stop. Yes, I know I bashed too, but I actually forced my self to install it on my main desktop and I'll never go back. Granted I waited until SP1 before I sat down with it for any real time, but even when I was using RC1/2 and pre-SP1, it was no worse then XP was at launch, (for me).

I find the way that people seem to take other peoples views (negative or positive) of software personally at once mystifying and hilarious.

The last time that I participated in an OS evaluation/purchase decision for a corporation (a few hundred users) was for Windows XPsp2, which I eventually decided was a worthwhile upgrade from Windows2000. I had been using XP on my home PCs long beforehand, and had been very happy with it, but that was whole other thing from my professional opinion of it's utility to the company.

I suspect that many would have considered my totally reasoned and rational explanations as to why upgrading was not appropriate until that point to be "Bashing".