Where did Vista go wrong?

[Azureth]

It's always bugged me the bad wrap Vista has gotten. Lots of people complain about problems, but from my experience they're a result of:

A) People having really old hardware.
B) People too lazy to google some easily fixed issue.
C) People not updating their drivers as needed.
D) People not really understanding Vista (eg people not realizing Vista using lots of RAM is a GOOD thing).

Seems to me most problems people have with Vista is just because of user error (which is most computer problems).

Yeah, Vista did have some legitimate problems when it first came out, but I certainly remember XP having lots of issues at its release as well.

There was a time I hated the idea of going to Vista but once I did I couldn't go back, I love the interface and features (hell, not having to worry about finding some damn SATA drivers for my HDDs is enough for me lol). Yes, there have been some issues I have had with Vista that I may not have initially had with XP, but I've never run into anything a simple google search couldn't fix, and it's normally not hard to do at all.

I know that with W7 they have fixed lots of problems, but I don't see it being that much better than Vista currently is as far as compatibility goes.

EDIT: Oh, and I HATE HATE HATE when someone is using Vista and they have a problem it's ALWAYS "OMG VISTA IS MESSING UP!!! NO!!!!"

 

[Joe Average]

"People are really fucking stupid." -- George Carlin

'Nuff typed.

 

[Met-AL]

The whole Windows Mojave thing showed exactly why.

People love to repeat what sounds like good gossip, even if it's false.

 

[Azureth]

But what has Microsoft done to make W7 seem better to the average joe? Rather you're using Vista or Windows 7 I can't imagine some whiny person who doesn't understand how to use a computer having much more luck with W7 than Vista.

That is to say, if someone is having a lot of issues with Vista for whatever reason I doubt they'll have much better luck using Windows 7.

 

[HOCP4ME]

EDIT: Oh, and I HATE HATE HATE when someone is using Vista and they have a problem it's ALWAYS "OMG VISTA IS MESSING UP!!! NO!!!!"

QFT! I know a guy who, when using a Vista machine, will blame Vista for every single problem he encounters. It doesn't matter if the stupid network cable isn't plugged in; he will first blame Vista, then check the cable.

As another example: I was once at a seminar, and the presenter had a PowerPoint presentation to show. When he tried to start the Office 2007 presentation in Office 2003, he got the "this presentation was made in a later version of PowerPoint" message. Someone in the audience immediately shouted, "you made it in Vista, didn't you?"

Umm...no. He probably made it in a later version of PowerPoint.

 

[Met-AL]

But what has Microsoft done to make W7 seem better to the average joe? Rather you're using Vista or Windows 7 I can't imagine some whiny person who doesn't understand how to use a computer having much more luck with W7 than Vista.

That is to say, if someone is having a lot of issues with Vista for whatever reason I doubt they'll have much better luck using Windows 7.

Because people aren't trying to upgrade from Windows XP with a 1.5Ghz P4 and 512MB of RDRAM to Windows 7.

I think alot of it has to do with the name. If Windows 7 were called Vista 2009 or something Vista... same crap again would happen. But name it Windows 7, and all is OK. Once again, its just like when MS renamed Windows Vista to Windows Mojave and all those people couldn't stop saying how much better than Vista it was.

 

[JohnleMVP]

M$ failed to deliver Vista on time, again, and again, so by the time it was really going to release, hardware manufactures didn't believe it and didn't make drivers. It also didn't help that Nvidia had buggy drivers either. They were blamed for 30% of the crashes. (Link) I think the driver issues and others like the help files not working out of the box lead to the bad press, which resulted in Vista losing the PR war. Apple's propaganda commercials also screwed Vista over.

NVidia says they will be ready for Win7 though.

It was also poorly marketed or possibly their wasn't much to market. Why should you upgrade to Vista from XP? Nicer looking interface, more secure, or DX10? I'm not sure Microsoft really convinced anyone or if those features are really enough to entice people. I also don't think home, home premium, business, and Ultimate was a good idea.

 

[dark_reign]

I think alot of it has to do with the name. If Windows 7 were called Vista 2009 or something Vista... same crap again would happen. But name it Windows 7, and all is OK. Once again, its just like when MS renamed Windows Vista to Windows Mojave and all those people couldn't stop saying how much better than Vista it was.

Yup. The "Vista" name is very tainted now. I never liked it to begin with because it sounded really lame. The promotional campaign didn't do it any favors either. "The WOW starts now?"

Going back at bit, Windows ME sounded just as lame. There wasn't even a reason to release it. Even to this day the name of it sounds corny.

 

[GushpinBob]

EDIT: Oh, and I HATE HATE HATE when someone is using Vista and they have a problem it's ALWAYS "OMG VISTA IS MESSING UP!!! NO!!!!"

My brother does this all the time when he brings up his laptop.
"Stupid Vista", "Dumb Vista", it's always about Vista. Not the fact that his laptop was an el-cheapo $600 HP, or the fact that he's always downloading random crap, or the fact that his room is the furthest from the wireless AP.

I would also blame Apple for Vista's character (or OS) assasination through their effective advertising. What average Joe wouldn't chuckle and clap his hands like an idiot every time they see John Hodgman fail at tasks while Justin Long makes some smug remarks?

 

[swatbat]

The whole Windows Mojave thing showed exactly why.

People love to repeat what sounds like good gossip, even if it's false.

Pretty much. People read all this bad stuff about it from IT and no one wanted to try it.

Really this is nothing new.

Going to windows 95 was a big step. A lot of people bitched about that change over.

If you remember windows 2000 was suspose to be the cut over OS to move consumers to the business kernel. Developers were not on board and a lot of consumer products had issues. MS ended up releasing ME as a stop gap and said it would be the last and the next os(xp) would be the switch over.

Vista had a lot of issues when it came out and most of them seemed to be driver or 3rd party software related. Corel is a prime example. They didn't have word perfect ready for vista. Hell the OS was only delayed like 2 years. Even when they patched 13 to run on vista it still had issues. WordPerfect 13 will crash if you have outlook 07 installed and open at the same time. Corel refuses to even admit to this. Not sure if x4 fixed this issue or not. We have a lawfirm that is running office 07 on their machines yet has to run outlook 03 due to this shit. Still isn't fixed.

 

[Azureth]

But if Vista had been called, say, Windows 7 do you think it would have done better?

 

[swatbat]

But if Vista had been called, say, Windows 7 do you think it would have done better?

No I don't. It could have been called xp2 or xp2k7 and it would have done bad.

MS went through and made some pretty big changes, many in the name of security. Reviewers nailed them for things like UAC. Never mind that unix has had pretty much the same thing for years(run in lower rights and have to enable high level rights when needed). Hell mac os adopted it with 10 as well. Really MS did it as part of their fight against things like spyware. Early reports showed that it was effective at it too(if you read people testing antivirus on vista you see where they turn it off because it was stopping too much on its own). Still people didn't like the change.

IT also really bashed it for other changes that really don't effect most end users. We have clients that we take to vista and they are surprised how much they like it. They read all of these articles about how bad it was and were expecting it to not work.

The biggest issue MS had though is the same one they always have. This issue is the 3rd party vendors. Vista was delayed years. Their is no excuse for a big third party vendor to not be ready for the switchover. Same thing goes with hardware vendors(printers in general are the big area of issues). A lot of vendors will tell you to buy the next version which is fine since they do have to make changes on there end but this ticks a lot of people off. I would get complaints on how the 10 dollar card game set someone bought didn't run on vista or something stupid like that. The one that has been out and lists windows 95, 98, and 2k on the box for system requirements that they have had since the mid 90s.

Hell I remember when 2000 came out. Big issue was apps running 16 bit code. Developers had updated there software in some cases 2 or 3 times since 95 came out and had yet to fully convert it to 32 bit code. In reality most apps that were written with 95 in mind would run on 2k. Still this was a major issue. XP added compatibility mode because of this. Really it was just adding extra layers of things to go wrong.

Edit:

People love to Bash MS because they are #1 in the market. Look at apple and how they can change without getting nailed as bad. They are on their 3rd major platform. First it was 68k, then power pc, now intel. With vista I can still run some old dos programs written from back in the 80s(just not full screen). Apple supports a cross over for a little bit of time then drops it. Look at linux with its driver issues with graphics cards(this is more ati and nvidia's fault). Ubuntu has really made strides in this area where you can just click a few buttons and tell it to use the non free drivers but this is an area that is a bitch. They also get picked on for things like adding media player. Who really cares? They are adding extra function into what you are paying for. People should be happy for this. Hell it isn't as bad as quicktime and itunes on mac os. MS was going to release onecare for free at one point as part of vista. It got shot down because of questions of them hurting the antivirus field. They ended up releasing it as a separate program to just avoid this issue.

 

[devil22]

Vista, imo, was the anti-MS (or 'anti-M$' if you're an emo kid) people's last great hope for redemption; here was a big change in the windows eco-system, changes to the driver subsystem, changing the user to run as a limited user most the time requiring elevation for admin level changes, lots of compatibility changes, and so on. If they were ever going to topple MS, it was when Vista launched, not through any fault of MS or Vista, it's just the way things were, so many changes would upset users whether they were necessary or not and, the theory was, that they could ignite a critical mass of backlash that would result in MS going BK (yea, they aren't grounded in reality much if you haven't noticed.) Anyways, the campaign was total failure, MS sold 350 million copies of Vista in the first 24 months, 150 million more than they originally projected they would sell long before the anti-vista campaign started. Now with 7, the gig is up, they really have nothing to fire up the base about and try to get average users to hate, now that Vista has done so well and everyone is used to the way Vista 'does things.' You still get some forum trolls attacking Vista occasionally, and a lot of left over 'blame Vista first' idiot users, but the campaign itself is basically dead. Good riddance...

 

[Sabrewulf165]

EDIT: Oh, and I HATE HATE HATE when someone is using Vista and they have a problem it's ALWAYS "OMG VISTA IS MESSING UP!!! NO!!!!"

FFS YES! God I hate those people. It's just my luck that I'm related by blood to one of them To this day he still whines and bitches about "everything" being "moved around." I'm like, dude... it takes 5 minutes to learn where things are, do you have fucking anterograde amnesia or something?

 

[XOR != OR]

A few things tanked vista from the start;

1) Change of driver model. It may have been for the better, but they didn't get buy in from hardware vendors on it like they should have. Hence, hardware issues at launch. Very bad mojo for an OS to overcome.

2) Perception of DRM. While it's true that 95% of us will never trigger the DRM, or would even notice it if we did, the fact that was in there got the niche market riled up.

3) File copying performance which persists to this day. This is a big one, and for the life of me I can't figure out how MS managed to fuck this up. But anyone who tries to copy large files, either locally or across the network, will tell you that it crawls in relation to XP. As a possible side note; the degrading of network performance while streaming thing is just stupid.

4) UAC. Oh, how could I possibly forget UAC? Crawling up your ass every time me, the administrator, wants to make a change. Worse, the problem it was designed to solve it simply exacerbates; user security. Often times, users downloading something will do so knowingly, thinking they are getting a screen saver or some other trivial thing. What good does UAC do here? Worse, it trains the user to simply click yes...twice...to get what they want. obviously, I'm not talking about us, but your average user.

5) The fan boys, who refused to admit that the emperor wasn't wearing any cloths. Vista had issues at launch, and some of those issues have persisted to this day. Yet listening to them, you'd think XP suffered from these problems too. Or that we are even wrong to think of these things as issues at all.

Those are just the 5 off the top of my head.

 

[daytripper67mi]

Ive had vista home premium on my main rig since 3/08 ,i have no complaints..

 

[bigdogchris]

But what has Microsoft done to make W7 seem better to the average joe?

I've read it performs better on lower end machines ... and that's about it. Otherwise 7 is more constraining, forcing folder arrangement, etc.

The reality is though that PC makers were quick to ship it on hardware that simply could not run the OS properly. They could of stuck with XP on those models and only offered Vista on high end models.

 

[swatbat]

A few things tanked vista from the start;

1) Change of driver model. It may have been for the better, but they didn't get buy in from hardware vendors on it like they should have. Hence, hardware issues at launch. Very bad mojo for an OS to overcome.

2) Perception of DRM. While it's true that 95% of us will never trigger the DRM, or would even notice it if we did, the fact that was in there got the niche market riled up.

3) File copying performance which persists to this day. This is a big one, and for the life of me I can't figure out how MS managed to fuck this up. But anyone who tries to copy large files, either locally or across the network, will tell you that it crawls in relation to XP. As a possible side note; the degrading of network performance while streaming thing is just stupid.

4) UAC. Oh, how could I possibly forget UAC? Crawling up your ass every time me, the administrator, wants to make a change. Worse, the problem it was designed to solve it simply exacerbates; user security. Often times, users downloading something will do so knowingly, thinking they are getting a screen saver or some other trivial thing. What good does UAC do here? Worse, it trains the user to simply click yes...twice...to get what they want. obviously, I'm not talking about us, but your average user.

5) The fan boys, who refused to admit that the emperor wasn't wearing any cloths. Vista had issues at launch, and some of those issues have persisted to this day. Yet listening to them, you'd think XP suffered from these problems too. Or that we are even wrong to think of these things as issues at all.

Those are just the 5 off the top of my head.

1. The driver model thing is something they always have issues with. When XP came out it had big blue screen issues and most of them were the fault of 1 graphics card vendor. Not saying it doesn't cause an issue but people seem to attack windows more for this then other systems.

2. Yea I knew I was forgetting something. People were so scarred of the DRM in vista. Can't really think of it giving me issues so far.

3. This really ticks me off. Man SP1 did a lot to fix this but it still runs like ass.

4. UAC doesn't bother me. Mac OS does the exact same thing except it makes you put in your password as well. Unix has done it for years too. Does it need to be tweaked? Sure. MS is just getting with the program here though.

5. XP did suffer with a bunch of problems when it came out. XP had the advantage of being the second version of the os though. A lot of the issues were fixed by the time it came out because they came up first in 2k. Same how 98 was able to fix a lot of issues that came with 95. I will say the file copying is a major issue with vista. That is really the only thing off the top of my head right now that really separated vista's launch from other major revisions(95 and 2k).

 

[Met-AL]

5. XP did suffer with a bunch of problems when it came out. XP had the advantage of being the second version of the os though. A lot of the issues were fixed by the time it came out because they came up first in 2k.

I was thinking the same thing. So in this respect Windows 7 is similar to Windows XP.

 

[XOR != OR]

5. XP did suffer with a bunch of problems when it came out. XP had the advantage of being the second version of the os though. A lot of the issues were fixed by the time it came out because they came up first in 2k. Same how 98 was able to fix a lot of issues that came with 95. I will say the file copying is a major issue with vista. That is really the only thing off the top of my head right now that really separated vista's launch from other major revisions(95 and 2k).

Yes, XP suffered from a bunch of problems too. That wasn't my point. My point is that it doesn't suffer from the same problems NOW that vista does. Yet, were you to listen to some of our more...vocal vista advocates, the known issues with Vista aren't really issues at all. If anything, they are features or are working as designed or some other excuse. Anything but address the actual complaint.

I use Vista every day, I have it on my home rig and at work. I loaded it up under the belief that I'd have to support it some day. That's starting to look less and less likely though, as everyone is aiming for windows7 in the enterprise.

4. UAC doesn't bother me. Mac OS does the exact same thing except it makes you put in your password as well. Unix has done it for years too. Does it need to be tweaked? Sure. MS is just getting with the program here though.

Just because other operating systems do it doesn't make it right. However, in MS's case, it's largely not their direct fault. Software developers seem insistent on writing piss poor software which has no business needing administrative authority when running, yet does because of the way it was written. That is not to say MS is guilt free here; were I them I would be crawling up my developer base's asses about fixing their broken code. Perhaps UAC wouldn't be as big a deal if they had done so, who knows, but I can guarantee it'd have done more for security than UAC alone could.

Vista's main problem was that it was too much a break from the norm without sufficient cooperation from MS partner's to make it a smooth transition. Combine that with some truly dumb ideas ( I count UAC in with that ), and you can see where Vista gets it's bad rap.

 

[TechieSooner]

The whole Windows Mojave thing showed exactly why.
People love to repeat what sounds like good gossip, even if it's false.

This. Honestly, that's it.
"Computer Enthusiast" review sites badly tainted its image. Anyone who knows how Vista works, understands that initial performance sucks. It gets better with time. So, the "install-fresh-copy-and-test" mantra really doesn't work.

It just shows you how ignorant most of those review sites are. We flat out can't test things the same way anymore.

I was at an IBM conference once, and the Vista hatred there was amazing. It was the "Cool" thing to do, to bash Vista. I held my tongue, was all I could do to tell them my Windows machines could do everything their overpriced, under performing IBM machines could ever do and more

But what has Microsoft done to make W7 seem better to the average joe?

Not a damn thing.

And that's the kicker.

Most people have no idea that Windows 7 is just Vista with some additional stuff on top of it. Thus, those who bash Vista but praise Windows 7, are the biggest morons you'll encounter.

M$ failed to deliver Vista on time, again, and again, so by the time it was really going to release, hardware manufactures didn't believe it and didn't make drivers.

That's what RTM period is for. There's no excuses for anyone on that front. Period.





Vista can also be summed up by this one fact of life: People hate change.
They bitched and moaned that XP was too insecure. When Microsoft (And the IT industry) said you need to run limited, users didn't listen.
So, Microsoft pretty much just forces limited mode by default (aka UAC). And then people bitch and moan because they WANT their systems wide open.

Vista had to happen. Microsoft had to do it. Either they took the step with Vista, or they took the step with another OS down the road... Those changes had to get made sometime.

 

[Joe Average]

A few things tanked vista from the start;

*snip*

Those are just the 5 off the top of my head.

1) Agreed, but the hardware vendors didn't just get it dropped on them at RTM - they had 3 years to develop drivers, and a lot of them - especially Nvidia and Creative - still screwed the pooch and never really got into gear.

2) Agreed again, was a big issue at first, especially with that so-called report that was floating around - which later on got shot full of holes as anyone with even 1% of a brain knew would happen.

3) I've never noticed this, so I don't specifically blame "Vista" for it, more likely the drivers (see #1 above) for NICs. On the machines I've installed Vista on, including the original release, SP1, and now SP2 on a small number as well (a few thousand boxen total), I have never personally seen issues with network transfers, including DVD5-sized ISOs one right after another. I've never noted breakdowns, disconnects, shoddy performance, sub-standard speeds, absolutely no degradation of performance ever in testing or in actual use. I've never had clients call me after a system is set up and integrated to complain about network speeds after a job is done, so... either I'm just lucky or it's very very specific to given hardware (more likely, given #1 above).

4) UAC is not about user security, that's the biggest mistake anyone has ever made about Vista. UAC is about keeping the machine running. I've said this before and I'll keep repeating it ad nauseum until people get it: Vista's #1 priority - and now Windows 7 also - is to protect itself from any and all possible things that can bring it down, stop it from working, crash, die, BSOD, etc, and that means enemy #1 is the users themselves, like it or not.

The biggest flaw in your argument about the "administrator" is that the Administrator account doesn't exist anymore as it did pre-Vista versions of Windows. Sorry, but that's the fact, Jack. It's just not in there anymore, and there is nothing that you or anyone else can do - no Registry hacks, no file patches, nothing - to restore that level of true "God-like" Administrator ability. UAC is about notifying the user that something is happening in the background, then gets brought to the foreground, and requires the user's intervention before the process can continue. "Administrator" elevation is a one time thing done at process execution on a process by process level - you can't run in permanent Administrator mode so everything does what it wants without question because the Administrator account doesn't exist anymore.

UAC doesn't stop the process, it just alerts the user - after that if things get fucked up, it's the user's fault, not the OSes. And that's exactly what UAC is designed to do, notifications and not really much else, so that right there is where almost all the problems come from because people still think UAC is about security and it's not. That confusion right there becomes a snowball that runs downhill and just gets blown out of proportion and makes it much easier for people to bitch about every little thing in Vista, and that's what happened. Oh, and the Apple commercials didn't help either.

I will gladly agree with you that UAC prompted a wee bit too much in Vista, and those issues have been addressed in Windows 7 - personally I never had problems because I followed my own advice that I wrote about in two stickies here about how to "work" with UAC in Vista on a different level. By default, the only time I see a UAC prompt in Windows 7 is during the initial installation of an application and I can't say I've ever seen it again afterwards when said application is executed unless I have altered the shortcut to start the application in Administrator mode (which I do on occasion depending on the app).

5) Yah, I've been accused of being one many times, but I'm not - I've never used Vista on my own hardware as a day to day OS for more than 1 day. I use(d) it for learning the ins and outs, or I had it set up in a VM under XP Pro x64, my preferred OS of choice - until Windows 7 started leaking out, that is. Since that happened, I haven't run XP Pro x64 since oh... last October, I think. I stand up against ignorance and bullshit and outright lies about Vista, yes, but I don't consider myself a fanboy - I just can't stand it when bullshit gets spread like it's the gospel truth:

"UAC pops up constantly" = Bullshit.

"Vista has DRM that will destroy us all" = Bullshit

"Vista is a space hog" = Bullshit, but there are reasons why it grows so large over time (Windows 7 will also), and it's a good thing

"Vista is hogging all my RAM!!!" = Bullshit, and easily understood once someone realizes just how good a box can run when Superfetch populates that RAM, but ignorant people continue to bitch about it.

and other bullshit too, but that should get the point across.

 

[pigwalk]

The biggest problem IMO, were the OEM's. Low priced, low end machines loaded with Vista were barely usable. I would tell my customers NOT to buy the single core Celly, 512mb Vista laptops, but they would ignore my advice and just focus on the price.

 

[Azureth]

JA I disagree with your point about UAC not popping up constantly, it certainly did for me. I really don't understand how UAC is supposed to make it safer, people will keep clicking "yes" to anything, regardless of how many times you ask. UAC isn't going to help stupid users.

 

[TechieSooner]

I really don't understand how UAC is supposed to make it safer, people will keep clicking "yes" to anything, regardless of how many times you ask. UAC isn't going to help stupid users.

The difference? They're making a conscious effort to bypass the security. That places 100% fault on the user.

 

[Azureth]

This. Honestly, that's it.
"Computer Enthusiast" review sites badly tainted its image. Anyone who knows how Vista works, understands that initial performance sucks. It gets better with time. So, the "install-fresh-copy-and-test" mantra really doesn't work.

It just shows you how ignorant most of those review sites are. We flat out can't test things the same way anymore.

I was at an IBM conference once, and the Vista hatred there was amazing. It was the "Cool" thing to do, to bash Vista. I held my tongue, was all I could do to tell them my Windows machines could do everything their overpriced, under performing IBM machines could ever do and more


Not a damn thing.

And that's the kicker.

Most people have no idea that Windows 7 is just Vista with some additional stuff on top of it. Thus, those who bash Vista but praise Windows 7, are the biggest morons you'll encounter.




That's what RTM period is for. There's no excuses for anyone on that front. Period.





Vista can also be summed up by this one fact of life: People hate change.
They bitched and moaned that XP was too insecure. When Microsoft (And the IT industry) said you need to run limited, users didn't listen.
So, Microsoft pretty much just forces limited mode by default (aka UAC). And then people bitch and moan because they WANT their systems wide open.

Vista had to happen. Microsoft had to do it. Either they took the step with Vista, or they took the step with another OS down the road... Those changes had to get made sometime.

It just irritates me people that have this extreme hatred of Vista and make jokes about "upgrading to XP" think the W7 is going to be the messiah of OS', and will have no issues whatsoever with it.

 

[Azureth]

The difference? They're making a conscious effort to bypass the security. That places 100% fault on the user.

But isn't the fault still the user regardless of whether or not a box pops up asking them to confirm something again and again?

 

[TechieSooner]

But isn't the fault still the user regardless of whether or not a box pops up asking them to confirm something again and again?

Technically, yes. But that way when someone says "I haven no idea why my computer is so slow" you know they're full of crap.

Or... "This virus just popped on here all of a sudden... I didn't do anything", you know they're full of crap.

 

[devil22]

Just because other operating systems do it doesn't make it right. However, in MS's case, it's largely not their direct fault. Software developers seem insistent on writing piss poor software which has no business needing administrative authority when running, yet does because of the way it was written. That is not to say MS is guilt free here; were I them I would be crawling up my developer base's asses about fixing their broken code. Perhaps UAC wouldn't be as big a deal if they had done so, who knows, but I can guarantee it'd have done more for security than UAC alone could.

And why would the developer base bother fixing their code, NO MATTER WHAT MS DID, if there was not something like uac that would cause badly developed software to annoy users? MS has tried for years to get software developers to code for least user privileges, and they never gave two shits until uac popped up. That makes UAC a good thing, in addition to keeping out root kits and such, it made developers change their coding habits. Anyways, I guess we have to complain about something, it's MS after all.

 

[leSLIe]

you can't run in permanent Administrator mode so everything does what it wants without question because the Administrator account doesn't exist anymore.

the administrator account does still exist, but is disabled by default. You just have to enable it

 

[dark_reign]

Technically, yes. But that way when someone says "I haven no idea why my computer is so slow" you know they're full of crap.

Or... "This virus just popped on here all of a sudden... I didn't do anything", you know they're full of crap.

Those people are the type that will also click on popups and "click here" ads when web surfing. They'll install anything they download and click through every UAC prompt, not understanding the consequences. It's mostly young kids doing this shit.

 

[devil22]

But isn't the fault still the user regardless of whether or not a box pops up asking them to confirm something again and again?

Not necessarily. For instance a virus can enter through the browser via a buffer overrun or the like, and it can't access user files or system files until the user OKs an elevation. Even the dumbest user is not likely to OK a UAC prompt that pops up out of the blue. Also, there may be dumb users who will click ok to anything, but there are also power users that want something to run but only in the user context and not as admin, so it can't do much damage if it is a virus. The goal here, should be to make users more like the power users, and not cave in to the habits of dumb users. By that reasoning, we should not have door locks, because 'dumb people' will just leave the doors unlocked since it's a hassle.

 

[dnottis]

It just wasnt done when it was released and that was the biggest problem with Vista.

 

[dark_reign]

It just wasnt done when it was released and that was the biggest problem with Vista.

It was more of a combination of delays and the laziness from hardware vendors as people here have already pointed out. Vista was in the making for years. It was done.

 

[Joe Average]

the administrator account does still exist, but is disabled by default. You just have to enable it

No, it doesn't, hence even when you do that little Registry hack and you run stuff UAC still prompts you - no account has that true pre-Vista Administrator power anymore, that's the point. Even as a "Computer Administrator" you get UAC prompts, even as the hacked/enabled "Administrator" you still get UAC prompts.

I'm just saying what Microsoft's own documentation says if people would just go read it: the Administrator account as it existed pre-Vista doesn't exist anymore.

 

[leSLIe]

I'm just saying what Microsoft's own documentation says if people would just go read it: the Administrator account as it existed pre-Vista doesn't exist anymore.

hehe, what a crap.
so how about Win7? does it have a true admin?

 

[Joe Average]

Nope, there's no need for it anymore given UAC's notifications and the requirement to ask for permission to elevate a process to "Administrator" level privileges. There's just no need to run as Administrator 24/7, ever.

I guess all those years of UNIX and now Linux people saying "Running as root, aka Administrator, 24/7 is a very very bad thing because one errant process can fuck the whole system if allowed..."

See that last word there, "allowed" ? That's the secret... and that's why UAC exists, to notify you and make sure you know what's going on and ask your permission to elevate on a process by process basis. If you were running as Administrator 24/7 with UAC off that's precisely how shit in the background - aka viruses, malware, whatever - brings down the OS, and Vista and Windows 7 are designed to keep themselves running, even in spite of ignorant users that don't know any better.

UAC is just asking permission to elevate a process to Administrator level privileges - you get the notification, and you make the final yes or no decision, hence YOU become the Administrator in that moment by giving the yes or no answer.

There's no need to be Administrator 24/7 because that leads to problems for the lowest common denominator which is everyone. Just because you "know what you're doing" doesn't mean Microsoft agrees, so they had to do something to protect the OS itself, hence no more true Administrator account access 24/7; it's granted on a process by process basis as required.

I really don't see why people continue to go on about UAC, I don't. It's here, it's been here, we're used to it now, there's no need for an Administrator account, it's a good idea, it works, it helps, it keeps the system more solid and reliable, and... and... and... AND THEN... NO AND THEN... ARRGGGHHHHHH...

Maybe I should just create an article called "Dude, Where's My Admin Account?" and be done with it...

 

[jimmyb]

I was at an IBM conference once, and the Vista hatred there was amazing. It was the "Cool" thing to do, to bash Vista. I held my tongue, was all I could do to tell them my Windows machines could do everything their overpriced, under performing IBM machines could ever do and more

Interesting. I had no idea Microsoft offered mainframe compatibility.

 

[Mithent]

I was thinking the same thing. So in this respect Windows 7 is similar to Windows XP.

Very much so. Despite Microsoft's claims to the contrary, Windows 7's version number being NT 6.1 is very accurate, as it is a refinement of the Vista platform - just like XP was NT 5.1 and refined Windows 2000 and brought that to the consumer market.

Vista did have the problems that any new platform would be at risk of - poor drivers, more issues than a smaller update, and changes that users will hate just because they're different. Considering it was up against the very long-standing Windows XP, these were particularly exacerbated. Vista was also only the third time that Windows had moved to a relatively new platform for consumers, and the others (Win 3.x -> Win 9x, Win 9x -> Win XP) both brought larger improvements than Vista.

There are improvements in Win 7, certainly, but the only explanation for the abrupt about-turn in general consumer opinion despite the incremental changes must be that people are coming back to the Vista/7 platform now that it's matured and seeing it without preconceptions formed at Vista's launch.

 

[XOR != OR]

4) UAC is not about user security, that's the biggest mistake anyone has ever made about Vista. UAC is about keeping the machine running. I've said this before and I'll keep repeating it ad nauseum until people get it: Vista's #1 priority - and now Windows 7 also - is to protect itself from any and all possible things that can bring it down, stop it from working, crash, die, BSOD, etc, and that means enemy #1 is the users themselves, like it or not.

Either way you slice it, it still does not achieve what it sets out to do; users will still click "Ok" to get the funny screen saver their friend sent them installed, thus weakening the integrity of the box.

The biggest flaw in your argument about the "administrator" is that the Administrator account doesn't exist anymore as it did pre-Vista versions of Windows. Sorry, but that's the fact, Jack. It's just not in there anymore, and there is nothing that you or anyone else can do - no Registry hacks, no file patches, nothing - to restore that level of true "God-like" Administrator ability.

I suppose you could just turn off UAC and put your user account in the Administrators group. There may be rights missing using this procedure, but they're nothing noticeable.

And why would the developer base bother fixing their code, NO MATTER WHAT MS DID, if there was not something like uac that would cause badly developed software to annoy users? MS has tried for years to get software developers to code for least user privileges, and they never gave two shits until uac popped up. That makes UAC a good thing, in addition to keeping out root kits and such, it made developers change their coding habits. Anyways, I guess we have to complain about something, it's MS after all.

MS had plenty of other tools in their PR kit to use against software vendors, including certification. Specifically, I am imagining a big ad campaign; "If it says Vista compatible, then you can be assured it will work flawlessly on your vista box!". Make it as painless a process as possible for developers to get their code up to speed and "Certified" ( and stick to the requirements ), and make it something the user wants. They may not know why they want it, but then that's never been really difficult in the past before.

Threaten developers with lack of sales and they'll change their software to be compatible. It would have cost MS money, true, but I wonder how much they lost because of "compatibility problems" and other negative press Vista received.