The Top 5 Reasons Why Vista Failed

[brom42]

It is really simple why IT environments are deploying it, consistency.

Take my environment for example. About 10% of our people are using software that either will not or runs really poorly in Vista. The producers of the software are also being painfully slow about releasing Vista compatible software. So I had to make a choice, move to a split environment with some people running Vista and some people on XP, or keep everyone on XP.

Anyone who has spent any time in IT knows which answer will make life much, much easier. Then there is all of the political office bickering if some gets "upgraded" to Vista and someone else doesn't.


I really, really like Vista; but the business world can't adjust to things so quickly. I remember going through this same problem with OS X. First couple releases were buggy, you had to run any old software in a horrible emulation environment, and it ran like complete and total shit on the average Mac hardware. But as the hardware improved, the bugs were worked out and all the other crap wrong with it were fixed, it really started to shine. Even though Windows 7 will just be a Vista rehash, the hardware by then will be much more capible, they should have most of the bugs worked out and people will probably be much more happy.


I think the biggest overall thing that caused problems for Vista was that MS made people feel forced into it. If people felt like they had more of a choice and it wasn't being forced down their throats, Vista wouldn't be viewed so negatively.

 

[Ockie]

And it's kind of strange they showed the stereo typical average home user in the mojave adverts, I want to see the off duty computer techs they pulled off the street, that instantly said "this is just like Vista"?

The average home user is their target audience and their largest market. There is no reason to focus on the tech group as these guys (us) will know more about the product than the advert is trying to explain.

It's kinda like new car products, they don't need to show how to use the products to car mechanics and how much better the product is going to be for them, as they already know... but they need to show he general joe six pack about how this product can let him get a better value out of it.

Ding ding ding. I went from 98 to 2000 for stability. 2000 to XP for SLI support and better multimedia support. XP to...still on XP. Why? No reason to waste my time reinstalling just yet. I'm not going to nuke my current, working XP install to upgrade for the hell of it--I need a reason to do that. Maybe in the future I'll think that DX10 is worth it, but not right now.

98 was rock solid for me, 2000 was even more solid. The thing about reasoning is perspective, I see Vista has having more entertainment value than XP (media center is built in for premuim and up), security has been increased, DX10 was a big bonus, and the 64bit computing aspect is improved over xp's 64 bit suite. But yes, most people wont see a reason to upgrade, just as a lot of people wont see the reasoning to upgrade from vista to the next generation. The majority of folks don't even use SLI, so realistically, we'd still be on 2000 if it wasn't for microsoft pushing products and tech. I'm personally looking forward to the next generation, as I'm a technophile, I enjoy new stuff and to play around with it (bleeding edge syndrome i guess).

 

[mercyground]

Vista features were cut massively. It initally promised 7 pillars on which Vista would improve the XPerience.

With the recode and rewrite there was so much cut it really is silly.
End result?

New driver model. (Deliberately "broken" becuase nvidia couldnt code for it and so its not what was promised. Creative took advantage of this to "break" older cards and therefore push users to buying "new" Vista capable cards. Shame on you.)

DX10. urm ok. well that means nothing to business customers. Work not play please!.

UAC... dont know if i should laugh or cry over this. I honestly dont.

SP1 rolled back filehandling to the "old" Xp method as the "new" Vista method caused massive delays and prompted calls for just what the hell was going on under the hood. DRM ?

I wont disagree that Vista with SP1 is better but the people i'm helping buy computers just want to surf the net and send pics and use a few office apps (word/excel). There is no reason for Vista on those machines. XP with SP3 and a 1gb of ram is alot faster than same machine with Vista.
With the new "laptop" craze... Its certainly more efficent to use XP than Vista.

If you do have a meaty machine with 4gb of ram then Vista does look good. I certainly see Windows7 as Vista Mk2. They are trimming the crap out of it. (look at the apps they are removing and replacing with Windows Live apps)

Guess we'll see end of 2009.

 

[Outamyhead]

*damn the no editing of comments*

Anyway Vista has taken OS security a step in the right direction, yes it's annoying every time it asks, but that is far better than letting something install without your knowledge, say like one of those crappy Anti-Virus 2008 pop ups.

My dad has had Vista on his new laptop for the last year and a bit now, and the only thing that goes wrong is he somehow loses the Google Widget sidebar, other than that it has been flawless for what he needs, and I'd make the transition myself if my system was going to take advantage of it's features and my hardware was up to the job...although I would have XP as well for dual boot since some of my games and software don't like Vista.

 

[Manaknight]

i don't agree with the entire article, however they do make a few good points.

I don't agree with #5. Apple successfully damaged the home and consumer users view of vista. That is true. However, IT departments already know that apple doesn't offer anything on a server backend, or anything really all that attractive for workstation use (multimedia firms aside).

What I see as the largest hurdles for vista adoption is:

Performance. You can trim a lot of fat out of vista and get it running pretty nice with some tuning. BUT that is on a decent hardware base to begin with. I would dread seeing what the s478 p4 2.4 and 2.8's with 1gb of ram would do under a vista load. Any of you who work in IT know what its like to get the budget for a business wide upgrade. It's an huge assache. Hell we only moved up to a gig this past year. That being said i do see that as a HUGE roadblock to adoption, as a lean xp install runs perfect on a gig of ram. (or even 512)

stigma. I'm asst director of IT where i'm at. However the guy above me is old school. Does IT work and avoids pcs on weekends, did punch card machines and all that. Still adheres to the years of microsoft bad mouthing that has come up...including the vista knocks (the non apple ones). He probably should have been part of the mojave experiment. I think he used vista for about 15 minutes on a bloated laptop pre install. I find this kind of situation prevalent especially in older workplaces.

Price. Ignore vista basic, its a waste of time, you are looking a business, home premium (probably best choice for work) or ultimate. Until recently the price was significant vs the price of xp. xp pro could be had cheaper than the vista os for a long time. When having to buy a volume license or many seperate copies its hard to justify the price difference. To be fair this is starting to be alleviated, but still for the first half of vista's lifespan it was a factor.

 

[Ockie]

Irrational dislike... I like that... very similar to irrational fanboism. Yeah because I've never used Vista, nor have I ever had friends use it, and of course no one has ever had any problems with it. nor do I currently have Vista on my own machine. But of course I have no clue whatsoever about what I'm talking about, and I'm just a "Xp Zealot." Please stop with all the blind fanboism, some of us "know the facts" about Vista, and it's precisely those facts that we don't like about it.

Okay, let me get this straight, you use it, your friends use it, but you hate it, but yet you still use it and bash it?

Talk about a hypocrite or "irrational fanboism"

I don't hate xp nor do I hate Vista, I use both... yet I'm accused of being hypocrite? haha

 

[Meocene]

No. 4 & 5 are true, but I wouldn't call Vista a failure.
The funniest thing about all of this is that it's just a little bit of history repeating - some quotes from various sources on XP:

"Indeed, XP inherits many of Windows' prior sins--from browser integration to security vulnerabilities--and commits some new ones, such as restricted multimedia formats, limited Java support, product activation, potential privacy troubles, and a hefty price tag."

&

"The software has a fancy new interface, with snazzier colours and all kinds of ingenious shortcuts and bundled software for playing movies, MP3 files and streaming audio and video - in a flagrant repetition of the aggressive software-bundling behaviour that landed the company with an anti-trust suit.

XP is also a Trojan horse that enables Mr Gates and a horde of even less welcome folks to invade your privacy, exploit your computer and empty your wallet.

So why are all these idiots in computer stores drooling at the prospect? Answer: because Windows XP is a monstrous, bloated brute that requires a state-of-the- art PC and two gigabytes of hard disk space before it will even say 'hello'. This means any consumer foolish enough to want to run XP will probably have to buy a new PC."

Funny isn't it. All this bad press is just generated by FUDsters who know it'll generate hits for their sites and therefore cash.

Interesting article right here.

 

[NKDietrich]

Vista has been running on my machines fail-free for over a year now. I haven't have performance problems, or app compatibility problems. A couple older games that wouldn't run without a little work, but then again they required some work under XP too.

All in all I've had no problems with Vista. I can understand John Q. Averageidiot having problems with it on occasion. And I can understand not needlessly upgrading on an enterprise level, but I'm not sure why supposedly intelligent "enthusiasts" would have a problem with it. I certainly haven't run into any.

Every complaint about Vista is virtually identical to a complaint people had about XP. It's just that most people here today weren't even around the hardware community when XP came out to remember the vile hatred with which it was welcomed.

 

[Monkey God]

No not really. Ockie and I don't dislike XP nor Vista. You on the other hand show irrational dislike for Vista in just about every post I read from you. We were merely defending Vista from FUD spreaders. Fanboyism != telling the truth.

Nobody's saying XP is bad. It's not. XP also took awhile to gain foothold in the IT world.

Agreed. Win2K was awesome. I dont think XP was ready for prime time until SP2 to be honest. I still use Win2K for older apps on older servers with minimal resources. Still executes 32bit code just fine.

 

[jzodda]

Vista is slower than XP.

You don't need to cite any article to know it. You just have to use it.
Benchmark it if you don't believe. All benchmarks will show you that XP is consistantly faster than Vista.

That was true for part of 2007 but that's a load of bull now. Show me "All" benchmarks from 2008 and this is from somebody who uses both XP32 and Vista64 dual boot every day. Vista is faster at opening and searching, loads faster, feels faster and from Sisandra and Futuremark benches its just as fast, or faster.

this crap "XP is faster" spin from 2007 is staring to get old as we approach 2009 and it hasn't been true for so long

 

[Ockie]

No. 4 & 5 are true, but I wouldn't call Vista a failure.
The funniest thing about all of this is that it's just a little bit of history repeating - some quotes from various sources on XP:

"Indeed, XP inherits many of Windows' prior sins--from browser integration to security vulnerabilities--and commits some new ones, such as restricted multimedia formats, limited Java support, product activation, potential privacy troubles, and a hefty price tag."

&

"The software has a fancy new interface, with snazzier colours and all kinds of ingenious shortcuts and bundled software for playing movies, MP3 files and streaming audio and video - in a flagrant repetition of the aggressive software-bundling behaviour that landed the company with an anti-trust suit.

XP is also a Trojan horse that enables Mr Gates and a horde of even less welcome folks to invade your privacy, exploit your computer and empty your wallet.

So why are all these idiots in computer stores drooling at the prospect? Answer: because Windows XP is a monstrous, bloated brute that requires a state-of-the- art PC and two gigabytes of hard disk space before it will even say 'hello'. This means any consumer foolish enough to want to run XP will probably have to buy a new PC."

Funny isn't it. All this bad press is just generated by FUDsters who know it'll generate hits for their sites and therefore cash.

Interesting article right here.

I remembered how arguments started as to why people should continue to use 2000 instead of XP because of the very same arguments that Vista is spurring right now.

You are right, history does repeat itself I'm now waiting for the next generation to come out and we should reference this thread

 

[eeyrjmr]

If I wouldn't need directx 10, I would still be on XP not because vista is a failure, simply because it doesn't have features which I wouldn't get in XP anyway.

In XP I use a program called "Launchy" as a keystroke launcher (it does the exact same thing as the vista indexing system)

so how much have you exploited DX10?

 

[Jeffxsee]

Not to be off track or anything, although my analogy might be horrible, but I find this discussion about vista / winXP to be extremely similar to counter-strike 1.6 and counter-strike: source. Yes I know both issues are on completely different levels but If I think about it, to me, its quite similar. Source was mainly a cosmetic upgrade from 1.6 and claimed to be more difficult to hack, not to mention user/noob friendly (vista). 1.6 was stable, large player base, easily playable on low system requirements, competitive and fun for the general populous . Eventually 1.6 support dropped from valve and source was forced upon players who were competitive by organizations that ran tournaments and events (CGS,WCG,CPL).
I don't know, I thought it was a bit amusing to relate this discussion to the game I used to play for an extremely long time.

 

[Monkey God]

people should clarify XP vs Vista / XP vs Vista SP1
To be honest, I haven't used it since before SP1 came out.

 

[bonsai]

Okay, let me get this straight, you use it, your friends use it, but you hate it, but yet you still use it and bash it?

I don't like XP anymore than I like Vista, but because I have no other options (read: software support) I'm stuck on bloatware from Microsoft. If I could run all my software elsewhere, I'd be there.

 

[Shambler]

Longhorn > Mojave

Fact!

 

[Ockie]

Not to be off track or anything, although my analogy might be horrible, but I find this discussion about vista / winXP to be extremely similar to counter-strike 1.6 and counter-strike: source. Yes I know both issues are on completely different levels but If I think about it, to me, its quite similar. Source was mainly a cosmetic upgrade from 1.6 and claimed to be more difficult to hack, not to mention user/noob friendly (vista). 1.6 was stable, large player base, easily playable on low system requirements, competitive and fun for the general populous . Eventually 1.6 support dropped from valve and source was forced upon players who were competitive by organizations that ran tournaments and events (CGS,WCG,CPL).
I don't know, I thought it was a bit amusing to relate this discussion to the game I used to play for an extremely long time.

There was a cult following with 1.6 and a big reason that stemmed from it was that when Source came out it wasn't designed to be as competitive and the hit-boxes were not accurate. Also, source had some system issues at first so that added to the list of issues. Tournament players also didn't like the redesigned maps (more obstructions, a complete different strategy that can be also distracting). A lot of counter-strike devout players didn't have higher end system specs, so upgrading to play 1.6 for a game that was working fine before really lit the fuse. In the end, things were fixed and organizers forced people over, now it's a non-issue.

But yea, it's pretty similar IMO.

 

[Azhar]

I don't like XP anymore than I like Vista, but because I have no other options (read: software support) I'm stuck on bloatware from Microsoft. If I could run all my software elsewhere, I'd be there.

Oh now we get it. You're one of those who hate Microsoft just for the sake of hating Microsoft because all the cool hip kids do it.

Yeah we got a few of those ninnies in the company too.

"why don't you install Firefox on company computers?"
"because there's nothing wrong with IE and all of our web services and Office are well integrated with IE"
"yeah but Microsoft makes IE."
"... so?"

 

[schnitz76]

Current plans are to roll out Vista, along with all new hardware and Office 2007, next year. With Aero enabled by default. About half our employees, and probably 90% of our management, are over 47 years old. While I (as a whipper-snappin' 27-year-old) will be able to pick up the new interface relatively quickly, I can only imagine the teeth-pulling agony the helpdesk will go through when the older employees are presented with Vista.

Vista isn't going to be a huge number of those calls -- Office 2007 will be. For the average user in a corp setting where GPO's dictate a lot of things those users are going to notice the "start" button has changed, and the start menu doesn't fly out. Office 2007 with the ribbon is going to kill your helpdesk. If those users needed to get around in the control panel then they will be lost, but really and truly the UI look of Vista has a transparent facelift over xp, but the X still closes the window in both of them.

 

[schnitz76]

My number one complaint is the UI ... why screw with the User Interface if you don't have to?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Make the UI updates completely optional ant the flip of a switch.

Right click the task bar -> properties -> Start menu -> classic

 

[Vermillion]

I remembered how arguments started as to why people should continue to use 2000 instead of XP because of the very same arguments that Vista is spurring right now.

You are right, history does repeat itself I'm now waiting for the next generation to come out and we should reference this thread

QFT!

And we'll hear the same thing again when Windows 7 is released. Then we'll hear it again with Windows 8 and yet again with Windows 9.

Businesses will bypass one generation simply because it's not cost effective to upgrade again and again. On the govt contract I'm on right now I still have to support Windows NT Server and Windows NT Workstation systems that are 233, 266, 400, 850, 866, 2.0, 2.8 and Dual-core 1.8 speeds (these are brand new). On the 850mhz systems and better we've upgraded to WEPOS (Windows Embedded for point of sale) but replacing 38,000 systems out there with the new dual-core systems to get them off Windows NT can't be done overnight nor is it cheap.

So this agency won't even be looking at Windows 7 or Windows 8. I'm betting Windows 9 before they upgrade again as WEPOS has full MS support until 2015.

 

[schnitz76]

There is no reason to use Vista is the business market yet, but for home it's awesome. Only thing I've ever had a problem with on Vista is nvidia drivers. Even my X-Fi works with a hitch.

Yes there is -- the GPO's have been *greatly* expanded. In a home environment this means nothing. Take a look at the ActiveX Installer Service for a very good example. I sure wish ActiveX would just die, but until then it is nice to use that with a GPO so the machines I admin can just load that control without me touching them.

 

[bonsai]

Oh now we get it. You're one of those who hate Microsoft just for the sake of hating Microsoft because all the cool hip kids do it.

I don't hate Microsoft at all. I just don't like bloatware, but since I can't use all my software on any other platform (I've tried) here I sit, stuck in the vomit that MS forces down my throat. Give me a streamlined windows, without all the bloat, geared for performance, that I can choose what I want to install, and I'd be happy. But we all know that's not going to happen.

 

[Gorankar]

1) The guy obviously does not remember how much crap Xp "broke" on it's release day. Can't give him that one.

2) Makes no sense unless he actually wants subscription based OSs and apps. If that is what he wants he can have it, otherwise, I can't give hime that one.

3) On modern hardware that Vista typicaly ships on, the speed is fine, once it settles in that is. Old computers that get upgraded to Vista are a different matter. I can't give him that one either.

4) Definately gotta give him that one. Xp was around a lot longer than is usual for a MS OS. Almost everyone has, or had, Xp and knows it's ins and outs pretty well by now.

5) I'll give that a partial. But regular customers that downgrade are few and between. Corporate customers downgrade a lot. But joe shmo that buys $600 Dells does not typically downgrade

 

[Azhar]

I don't hate Microsoft at all. I just don't like bloatware, but since I can't use all my software on any other platform (I've tried) here I sit, stuck in the vomit that MS forces down my throat. Give me a streamlined windows, without all the bloat, geared for performance, that I can choose what I want to install, and I'd be happy. But we all know that's not going to happen.

You should count your blessings. We could be using this instead of the Windows you've come to love and hate.

 

[Ockie]

I don't hate Microsoft at all. I just don't like bloatware, but since I can't use all my software on any other platform (I've tried) here I sit, stuck in the vomit that MS forces down my throat. Give me a streamlined windows, without all the bloat, geared for performance, that I can choose what I want to install, and I'd be happy. But we all know that's not going to happen.

Actually they have this, try the European version, less bloat.. but no one wants it

 

[Monkey God]

vlite FTW

 

[Shambler]

Anyone else here love 95 OSR2?

 

[bonsai]

vlite FTW

That would be wonderful if it worked, but there are so many interdependencies built into Windows, that it's nearly impossible to remove all the excess without breaking multiple things for other software packages. The Linux side of the house has this much more under control, and you can easily remove and reinstall packages with any depencies, quite easily. I'd like to see this changed in Windows too, but once again, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Guitarrasdeamor]

Vista didn't fail at all IMO. I think it is a great OS, and SP1 made it that much better.

 

[Azhar]

Anyone else here love 95 OSR2?

98SE was pretty good too.

So was XP SP2

Hey there's a pattern! Windows DO get better over time!

 

[Azhar]

That would be wonderful if it worked, but there are so many interdependencies built into Windows, that it's nearly impossible to remove all the excess without breaking multiple things for other software packages. The Linux side of the house has this much more under control, and you can easily remove and reinstall packages with any depencies, quite easily. I'd like to see this changed in Windows too, but once again, I'm not holding my breath.

Holy crap, are you for real?

When's the last time you've installed a software in Windows that prompts you "I'm sorry you need the following to run it: (followed by 10-20 modules and pre-req software)"?

How about Linux? Didn't they have to do a refresh on updaters and installers all the time to make it easier for people to install software and automatically find dependencies said software require? Didn't it used to stop you a hundred times because you needed to install something else, and that something else needs something else too? Please don't tell me it didn't because guess what? I've used Linux too.

Please take your BS and go fool your grandmother because it won't work here.

 

[schnitz76]

Whether or not you like Vista or plan to skip it and go to Windows 7, if you are in an IT shop and you are going to deploy anything after XP you really should start looking at the new deployment toolkit. I've been working with that damn thing for 1.5 years now and it is a PITA. MS seems to be very committed to keeping it around for at least a few generations. They have even made it so that it works with XP. In our shop we just deploy from WinPE off a share (before I got here it was decided that SMS and WDS, the replacement for RIS(?), was not worth the trouble). At some point IT shops are going to have to pay the piper and start working on the new windows deployments.

From an admin perspective I have a love hate relationship with Vista. I love it because I get to tell people that their 15 year old POS software isn't supported in Vista so buy something new that actually runs. That software was the bane of my existence when I had to deal with it under XP. Every time we refreshed machines I'd have to spend hours to get that POS working. Now with UAC since that program loves to write old crap to system32 I don't have to worry about it because MS has finally taken a stand with developers and started biting on the things they barked about all the way back to Win95. On the other hand there is software that I have to deal with that runs just fine out of the box in a limited-user context, but as soon as I apply a patch UAC kicks off every time and it doesn't run any more.

Vista is just like every other OS on this planet -- it has problems, but it also has reasons to like it.

 

[kllrnohj]

The only one I agree with is #4

#3 is bullshit for two reasons:
1) Vista isn't slower than XP. In day to day normal home user use it is much, much FASTER than XP assuming a reasonable system (2gb of ram + dual core). My mom is using XP, and my dad is using Vista. Both use the same subset of programs (Office, Firefox, solitare) every night. Vista is consistently faster at launching programs, so much so that Firefox 3 starts up in about 1/3rd the time. Both systems are comparable in terms of hardware (1gb RAM on mom's, 2gb on dad's, both have Athlon X2s). Superfetch works.

2) While I'm not going to argue whether or not Vista is bloated (which I think is crap, especially since people generally call it bloated right after they say that not enough was added), but rather because his "metric" is complete bullshit. Measuring lines of code doesn't tell you ANYTHING, especially not relative bloat. Look at compilers. There are generally two optimization paths - optimize for speed, or optimize for space. The two very rarely go hand in hand when you are dealing with lower level languages like C/C++. Quite often optimizing means adding more code.

#2 seems just pointless. It would only make sense if people were protesting Vista because they WANT a subscription based OS, which they obviously aren't.

#1 I can kind of see where he is coming from, but it doesn't really work. Maintaining backwards compatibility is often a *BAD* thing for an OS. It means design flaws can't be corrected, and things can't be improved. Screw that. Rather than blame vista, get on the manufacturer's case to put out a decent driver.

And to the guy who said that the new display model sucked because nvidia's initial vista driver was terrible - are you a moron naturally or did that come with practice?

 

[bonsai]

How about Linux? Didn't they have to do a refresh on updaters and installers all the time to make it easier for people to install software and automatically find dependencies said software require? Didn't it used to stop you a hundred times because you needed to install something else, and that something else needs something else too? Please don't tell me it didn't because guess what? I've used Linux too.

Yes, but there are repositories now that will download all the required dependencies with one click. But please if you want to spread FUD, by my guest.

Windows has tons of dependencies, but they all work behind the scenes, where as Linux will actually let you know what's happening. And yes, there have been plenty of times where I get prompts from Windows that I'm missing such and such .dll or such and such package (ie. directx 9 in Vista). Windows is not immune.

 

[kllrnohj]

Holy crap, are you for real?

When's the last time you've installed a software in Windows that prompts you "I'm sorry you need the following to run it: (followed by 10-20 modules and pre-req software)"?

How about Linux? Didn't they have to do a refresh on updaters and installers all the time to make it easier for people to install software and automatically find dependencies said software require? Didn't it used to stop you a hundred times because you needed to install something else, and that something else needs something else too? Please don't tell me it didn't because guess what? I've used Linux too.

Please take your BS and go fool your grandmother because it won't work here.

No. First, how you install software in Linux has nothing to do with Linux, but rather what distribution you are using. I realize you were just using Linux to mean all distros, but I think the distinction needs to be made. Second, when was the last time you've told Windows to install a program by clicking a checkbox and hitting "install", and having it go out and download and install it for you (hell, I told Ubuntu to automatically check for updates)? When was the last time you told windows to update everything installed? If you've used a more modern distro, you pretty much never need to deal with dependencies. They never pop up and ask you, or tell you to install x, y, and z first (nor have they ever, actually, if you use the package manager that comes with the distro anyway). If you are on Ubuntu (and I'm sure others, I'm just the most familiar with Ubuntu), you can even just double click on a .deb and hit "Install" - it then does all the work. Manual dependency resolving hasn't been an issue for at least 15 years.

 

[bonsai]

When was the last time you told windows to update everything installed?

That's the true beauty of a modern operating system. Windows can only dream to accomplish this, though they're trying awful hard.

 

[Seelenlos]

this summed it up for me

"With Vista, there are simply no major incentives for IT to use it over XP. Security isn't even that big of an issue because XP SP2 (and above) are solid and most IT departments have it locked down quite well."

Add to that the cost of resources to upgrade hardware retrain people and the overall hassle of upgrading in general there is NO reason for us to upgrade here. Hence vista fails in that regard for many businesses and organizations.

It will be on my next home pc because I'll want to use it, but I would be surprised if we ever move to it at work and would not support the move myself. At this point I think 90%+ of the IT people here think they same, no one is even talking about upgrading to it. It has been brought up several times in meetings and no one wants to do it.

 

[Monkey God]

I dont want my OS to update everything installed. Windows update its own code base if I tell it too (via configing windows update) and my apps dont update unless I want them too. Why would I want my apps updating without my say so? Sure, steam updates everything automatically, but you can turn it off if you want.

Lets not muddy the waters with linux UBER ALLES if we can please.

 

[Azhar]

No. First, how you install software in Linux has nothing to do with Linux, but rather what distribution you are using. I realize you were just using Linux to mean all distros, but I think the distinction needs to be made. Second, when was the last time you've told Windows to install a program by clicking a checkbox and hitting "install", and having it go out and download and install it for you (hell, I told Ubuntu to automatically check for updates)? When was the last time you told windows to update everything installed? If you've used a more modern distro, you pretty much never need to deal with dependencies. They never pop up and ask you, or tell you to install x, y, and z first (nor have they ever, actually, if you use the package manager that comes with the distro anyway). If you are on Ubuntu (and I'm sure others, I'm just the most familiar with Ubuntu), you can even just double click on a .deb and hit "Install" - it then does all the work. Manual dependency resolving hasn't been an issue for at least 15 years.

Who cares if dependencies have nothing to do with Linux itself. It doesn't negate the fact that a lot of software require other software to run. It's semantics. I never said Windows didn't have dependencies, but rather I was saying bonsai was full of it comparing Linux to Windows using this argument. All operating systems have dependency requirements. All software do too. Otherwise, what would be the point of having an operating system if you could just turn on your computer and use software without ever seeing Windows or Linux or MacOS?