backtop

Software Vista's Failures...So Far
Brandon Hill (Blog) - April 20, 2006 7:21 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 28 comment(s) - last by matthewfoley.. on May 19 at 10:01 AM

I don't have permission to delete a shortcut? -- Image courtesy Paul Thurrott's SuperSite
Is Vista everything that Microsoft initially promised?

Paul Thurrott has posted yet another look at Windows Vista. Ever since the first alpha and beta releases of Longhorn/Vista hit the web, Paul has been giving us regular updates on the progress of the operating system. Paul's articles are usually for the most part positive with a little hint of negativity thrown in where appropriate.

Paul's latest article though lays everything out on the line when it comes to Vista. Now that Vista is supposedly feature complete and many things will stay as is when the final product ships, promises that Microsoft made in regards to features in the operating system, usability issues and application blunders are now fair game. Here, Paul rants about missing features that Microsoft promised:

There are so many more examples. But these two, WinFS and virtual folders, are the most dramatic and obvious. Someday, it might be interesting--or depressing, at least--to create a list of features Microsoft promised for Windows Vista, but reneged on. Here are a few tantalizing examples: A real Sidebar that would house system-wide notifications, negating the need for the horribly-abused tray notification area. 10-foot UIs for Sidebar, Windows Calendar, Windows Mail, and other components, that would let users access these features with a remote control like Media Center. True support for RAW image files include image editing. The list just goes on and on.

I must say, I've tried and tried to give Vista more than a second glance. I've tried every beta release that Microsoft has issued, but every time I find myself being less productive and utterly frustrated using the operating system compared to Windows XP.  Fortunately, it looks like Microsoft has a few more months to get some of these issues under control.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Well
By xxtyderxx on 4/20/2006 7:54:19 PM , Rating: 1
I think it will be a lot more organized and all, but the interface is very different from what many people are used to for Windows. When Vista was going to be released, I was immediately going to buy it. But then it got pushed back, and features removed now.. I am rethinking altogether about Windows and Microsoft. I'm actually thinking of moving to Mac, that's where I think all the good features are and a great interface to get used to. (I also think Macs are very organized as well).




RE: Well
By Zelvek on 4/20/2006 8:01:03 PM , Rating: 3
I would too but the support for games is't there and that is one of the bigest uses of a computer for me. Though with boot camp the idea looks more appealing.


RE: Well
By xxtyderxx on 4/20/2006 8:03:56 PM , Rating: 3
I do agree. I am not a gamer, but a developer and a Mac would be good for people like me. But, if I needed to, I could use Windows with Boot Camp. I also heard Boot Camp will be installed on Leopard, the new Mac software coming probably before Vista.


RE: Well
By egrefen on 4/20/2006 8:04:15 PM , Rating: 2
I was just thinking that. Is there any real reason why you would need Vista for games? I mean, if they run under XP, technically you'd be just fine and dandy running them on an intel iMac with boot camp and XP, no?


RE: Well
By Ard on 4/20/2006 8:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
DX10. Now, granted, the majority, if not all, DX10 games will have a DX9/XP path, but I think it's going to eventually get to a point where you're going to need DX10, and thus Vista, to truly appreciate the game and get the proper performance. And of course if you want to play Halo 2 on your PC Vista is required.


RE: Well
By Exodus220 on 4/20/06, Rating: 0
RE: Well
By Plasmoid on 4/20/2006 9:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
I can see it now... loads of kiddies with Halo 2 but no vista to play it on.

Really, who is going to be interested in a dated game Like Halo 2 running an all new expensive (if you want a decent edition ) operating system with UT2007 or Crysis to run on XP.

I really think Microsoft is going to have to rethink the now DX10 for Xp idea when you consider how long ME was lingering on in the face of the vastly superior xp (and 98 but thats another argument). I dont think vista offers anything for the non-enthusiast and i think outside such ploys as DX10 and Halo 2 there is no compelling reason for anyone else.


RE: Well
By RDGadz on 4/20/2006 10:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
DirectX is one of the major reasons I am running windows and not some version of Linux... and I hardly play the latest games on the computer, or 360 for that matter.

I want support for the most stuff, to have the most options, and the easiest time installing drivers. Right now drivers for both 32 and 64 bit aren't the lease bit stable on vista.

When things work the way they should on vista I am blown away with its speed and usability.

Just like everyone doubted windows XP, Vista is the one to have doubts now, but we will all NEED it in the future.

As for now, I will be okay with the BSOD (wow when is the last time I have seen that), lack of network functionality, and failure to play Warcraft, on Microsoft's latest and greatest; Windows Vista.


RE: Well
By poohbear on 4/21/2006 8:51:10 AM , Rating: 2
"Just like everyone doubted windows XP, Vista is the one to have doubts now, but we will all NEED it in the future."

huh? who doubted XP? everyone was raving about XPs stability and features compared to the win98/95 OS. infact, the main reason i upgraded was because of all the good reviews. if vista is indeed worth upgrading to, i'll do it, but not until there's a general consensus that it's stable and more convenient.


RE: Well
By matthewfoley on 5/19/2006 10:01:10 AM , Rating: 2
No one would doubt the stability improvements of XP over 98. The debate of XP vs 2000 Pro had some merit at the time of XP's release.


RE: Well
By Burning Bridges on 4/21/2006 6:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
There are a few games out there that use the open-source OpenGL alternative to Direct X, Doom 3 and Quake 4 being among them. Wih OpenGL the games can be easily ported to both Linux and Mac OS, all that really needs to happen is that more developers go down that route, as it would effectively remove one of Vista's major selling points (the need to have the latest Direct X) for PC gamers.


Wow
By OCedHrt on 4/20/2006 9:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
Wow talk about being agitated. Plus, it's quite easy to tell which window is in focus. It's the one where the X is colored. DUH. I think Paul's been abducted by aliens and this isn't really him.




RE: Wow
By Thrawn on 4/20/2006 10:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
The point was that it is a much smaller difference. As a test I showed it to my mom and she wasn't able to figure out the difference. And she fits the average computer user mold better than anyone I know.


RE: Wow
By iamright on 4/20/2006 11:43:20 PM , Rating: 2
The point is to not have to look at the red X. The point is to make the top window obviously on top. I can tell easily enough but what about the old people that can hardly use windows XP which is not even as bad?


RE: Wow
By Bonrock on 4/21/2006 1:32:55 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with Paul that the window focus thing is a problem. You shouldn't have to look that closely to figure out which one is in focus. MacOS has exactly this problem too, but Windows XP doesn't. Why regress in Vista?


Save us
By Scabies on 4/21/2006 11:11:36 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, as long as it works and has a fully functional XP emulation suite, I'll be fine. I say emulation, because thats essentially what has to be done to enjoy the classics these days. Final Fantasy VII, old OLD school titles like Sam and Max and Wing Commander II, and my nostalgic library never worked on XP without massive driver/OS modifications and stuff like DOS-Box. Will we see the same thing elbowing out all of the current XP titles, Half Life 2, BF2, Unreal whatever-they-have-these-days, will they be plagued with the "hey, you have a new OS, tough luck, this OS only allows the cool new games we're gonna make you buy now. Oh, and Solitare 64bit edition" disease?




RE: Save us
By suryad on 4/22/2006 5:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
God I love those games you mentioned.


By logan77 on 4/21/2006 5:29:31 AM , Rating: 1
So you are basically totally unhappy with current Vista situation, yet feel confident that totall rewrite of the code ground-up by the same very company will magically change this state...


They should DESIGN NEW KERNEL FROM SCRATCH! And then lay some nice convenient GUI and other subsystems on top. JUST LIKE THEY DID WITH NT WHEN THEY SAW DOS DAYS ARE OVER. It's that simple.

AFAIR they took some parts of the BSD kernel and hired folks from BSD team when they were "designing" NT ...it's that simple. Writing new kernel is anything but simple, no matter how much money you put into it. It takes time, patience, vision etc. If it were _that_ simple as your post suggests why Microsoft haven't done it already for Vista ?


Reason 2: there's currently a HUGE transition happening in PC world. Multicore CPUs, EFI, pervasive wireless, Internet, e-commerce, all the new hardware, no-execution bit, SSE2/3, Intel VT and AMD Pacifica, gigabit and 3D accelerators in every mobo ..... NEW WORLD requires a NEW KERNEL (plus everything else). Simple, eh?

And where are the figures that show how Vista scales with number of cpu's increasing ? From what I know Linux kernel _easily_ scales up to 32 cpu's (with regard to tasks that require interoperability between cpu's), and probably well beyond it, so there is kernel that may do just what you ask for :) .
What about internet ? I thought is't about TCP/IP stack, which is what ? 25 years old (hint - not everything that is old is worth s#%@ ).

>"pervasive wireless" - isn't it a job for drivers regardless of the kernell ?

>"no-execution bit" - and I thought that Service Pack 2 already added support for this...

>"e-commerce" - web browsers role to make it happen, along with conforming to standards

>"SSE2/SSE3" - what does it have to do with kernel ? Do you ask for specific optimisations for this instruction sets to be made in kernel ? They are multimedia specific (hint - in kernel there will be no improvement), it's up to the apps to utilize it.

>"Intel VT and AMD Pacifica" - and your point is ... ? They will make it into Vista...

>"all the new hardware" - drivers _again_

>"gigabit" - what about it ?

>"3D accelerators in every mobo" - you will have your eye-candy in Vista so what's your point ? Isn't modern accelerators fully supported on WinXP already (by respective manufacturers) ?

>"NEW WORLD requires a NEW KERNEL" - no it does not ! - it's Microsoft that need's one :) (joke)


MS itself jumped from 9x to NT and thrived on that too. So this WILL WORK again and again. There is NO MAJOR DANGER IN WRITING A NEW OS FROM SCRATCH.

WinXP was made on a basis of Win2000, Win 2000 on WinNT and WinNT used BSD code... when exactly someone wrote an entire kernel from scratch that made it to mainstream ? Linux kernel for example is constantly being developed for the last 15 years and it is work in progress...the point is - this can be made, but takes time and a lot of it for that matter.


This new OS should <DREAMS ON>work on multicore CPUs ONLY, have built-in VMM like Xen or something using VT support from both Intel and AMD, be 64-bit ONLY, have NO SUPPORT FOR FLOPPIES (!!!), COM, LPT, PATA and museum crap like that

So what ... do you want to have every task to be at least 2 threds ? XEN is not ready yet, nor is it a Microsoft's baby. In what way not ditching support for 32 bit makes platform suddenly dated ? Don't like floppies ? - don't use them... Drivers for COM, LPT and PATA don't make kernel that much bigger do they ? (definitely not slower !)


support 3D accelerators from the start (HAL layer for 3D hardware anyone?)

If Microsoft starts to manufacture graphic cards then yes. Otherwise - no... It's the manufacturers who provide drivers for their stuff.