Print 104 comment(s) - last by XPguy.. on Jan 17 at 9:46 AM

PC World calls out Microsoft on Windows Vista

The hatred for Windows Vista has been well documented on DailyTech and by millions of Vista users around the web. From the very beginning, many consumers took issue with Microsoft's multi-tiered approach to Vista.

Microsoft currently has four versions of Windows Vista aimed at the consumer market: Home Basic, Home Premium, Business and Ultimate. Vista Home Basic is the cheapest and has the least features, while Vista Ultimate is the most expensive and most feature-filled version.

Many felt that Microsoft should simply take Apple's approach with OS X and just include a single SKU for everyone and charge everyone the same price. Many also championed Apple's 5-user license policy with OS X versus Microsoft's "reduced" pricing efforts with Windows Vista Family Discount -- a program that ended on June 30.

In addition to pricing, licensing and marketing, many people consumers simply are disappointed with Vista's performance. Many users have claimed that Vista simply is slower than Windows XP for many operations with pesky trouble spots including networking and gaming.

Microsoft plans to address many performance-related problems/bugs with Service Pack 1, but Windows XP is getting a speed boost of its own with Service Pack 3.

All of the controversies and disappointments related to Vista were enough for PC World to label Windows Vista the #1 Biggest Tech Disappointment of 2007.

"The user account controls that were supposed to make users feel safer just made them feel irritated. And at $399 ($299 upgrade) for Windows Ultimate, we couldn't help feeling more than a little gouged," remarked PC World's Dan Tynan.

"No wonder so many users are clinging to XP like shipwrecked sailors to a life raft, while others who made the upgrade are switching back. And when the fastest Vista notebook PC World has ever tested is an Apple MacBook Pro, there's something deeply wrong with the universe."

For me personally, I'm rather indifferent to Vista -- I don't hate it, but I also don't love it. I currently own two PCs: a HP desktop with Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 RC1 installed and an Eee PC 4G with Windows XP Home SP2 (nLite’d of course). I don't game on either machine and I mainly use both for Internet, email and productivity (Office 2007 on the desktop, OpenOffice Portable on the Eee PC).

I routinely go back and forth between both machines during the day and don't miss anything in particular from either machine (feature wise) with regards to the operating system. In other words, given my usage model, I could use my Eee PC all day and not really long to be on my Vista-equipped desktop.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By TomZ on 12/17/2007 3:42:32 PM , Rating: -1
Why would you want to turn off UAC? That just means that a virus/malware/adware app can silently muck with your system in any way it wants to, without any ability for you to stop it. Doesn't sound like a smart trade-off to me.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By Brandon Hill on 12/17/2007 3:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
I hate UAC b/c every damn time I try to do something, that damn things pops up another damn nag screen.

Delete a file, **BOOP**
Install a new program, **BOOP**
Go to Control Panal, **BOOP**

I turned that crap off as soon as I installed Vista.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By TomZ on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: (nLite’d of course)
By Brandon Hill on 12/17/2007 5:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
It's a good solution maybe for people who don't know any better. But for most people that are well-honed on Windows operating systems, it's a damn annoyance.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By TomZ on 12/17/07, Rating: -1
RE: (nLite’d of course)
By Brandon Hill on 12/17/2007 6:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
Uhhh, I do the same thing I did when I had XP on my desktop and what I do with my Windows XP machine.

AVG Free antivirus plus SpyBot.

How hard is that? I guess XP must be some POS operating system without the Yoda that is UAC :)

That being said, I can't recall when the last time I had a virus or spyware loaded onto my system. It was probably way back in my Windows 98 (pre SE) days.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By aos007 on 12/17/2007 7:22:42 PM , Rating: 3
While I'm somehow managing to survive its incessant complaining, and while I can see good intentions in preventing a program from writing into Program Files (as some seem to want to do, for live updates or config changes) - I cannot fathom the idiocy of asking me to approve EVERY FRIGGIN' TIME I double click on say cpu-z. For God's sake why does it not remember that I allowed the program to run once already, for the remainder of the session at least? Especially since it's a VERY DIRECT USER INITIATED ACTION (yes, I'm yelling) - not some behind-the-scenes background launch. This is kind of stuff that does far more damage - it's a proven fact that stress it causes can shorten my life. In that light, the increased likelihood of PC getting infected by a virus suddenly doesn't look all that big of a problem.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By AlexWade on 12/18/2007 8:29:21 AM , Rating: 3
Another thing: since UAC bugs you so much, a user is likely to start ignoring it and approve everything without checking. Just like ads, they are everywhere so people tuned them out. Then UAC just becomes a pure annoyance and not a safety.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By rdeegvainl on 12/18/2007 6:38:51 AM , Rating: 3
Why would I want to disable UAC every time I defragment, delete files I no longer use, play games(yes it does pop up for games I play) or try new programs, new drivers, updates to any program I use, and then re-enable UAC? This is my day to day use of my computer. It popped up all the time when I used my computer. I really have no problem with Vista, cause I disabled the UAC after it got too annoying, but you seem to have a problem with other peoples legitimate issues.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By Brandon Hill on 12/18/2007 7:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed 100%

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By SoCalBoomer on 12/17/2007 5:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
Strangely, people laud OSX's 'version' of UAC as better - but with it, you have to input the admin password rather than just clicking on a button saying, yes, this is what I intend to do.

wow - complain about Windows when it has a minimalistic version, but applaud Apple when it makes you type a password.


RE: (nLite’d of course)
By Murst on 12/18/2007 2:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need to enter the password if the user you're running under is an admin. However, if you are not running as an admin, you will be prompted for a password.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By killerroach on 12/20/2007 11:18:51 AM , Rating: 2
And if you run as admin on any Unix-based OS, you deserve what you have coming. UAC is basically Microsoft's way of forcing admin accounts (and all others, for that matter) to sub-admin status to both protect users from themselves and to encourage developers to create code that doesn't run afoul of UAC for no good reason.

That being said, UAC is still incredibly annoying to those who play a bit more fast and loose with their machines.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By ChronoReverse on 12/17/2007 6:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
If you're deleting a file from Program Files, UAC BETTER let me know. For known safe locations, it's just a matter of security settings... if I own the folder or have read/write access, guess what, UAC doesn't kick in!

Opening the Control Panel does not trigger UAC. In fact, looking at my Control Panel right now, there's only 5 items inside the Control Panel that would activate UAC (you can tell from the shield icon overlay):
1. Add Hardware
2. Bitlocker Drive Encryption
3. Device Manager
4. iSCSI Initiator
5. Parental Controls

As for program installation. Turn off UAC during your install phase. Then turn it back on. That wasn't so hard after all.

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By Brandon Hill on 12/17/2007 7:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about you, but many of us seasoned Windows users don't do stuff don't go around deleting files from Program Folders or from within the Windows directory. That's for the people that don't know any better.

It's been a while since I've used UAC, but I do recall it going **BOOP** when I tried to go to Device Manager.

That being said, I hate UAC and that's why I have it disabled. I don't care if it **BOOPS** at me three times during week -- that's three times too many.

For my usage model, it's just an annoyance. I can do the same operations on my Windows XP-based Eee PC and not have to worry about being interrupted. That's the way I like it.

Sure, you have the right to say that I'm being picky for singling out UAC and that it actually serves a purpose. And I have the equal right to say that I hate it with a passion :)

RE: (nLite’d of course)
By DanaGoyette on 12/21/2007 10:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of Device Manager, that reminds me of another thing I hate about UAC: It's all or nothing. There's no "run as non-admin anyway" button.

How to find out what hardware a computer in a store has:

XP: Run device manager. Say "ok" to "can't change anything."

Vista: Run device manager. Be prompted for admin password. Don't have one? Sorry, no device manager for you!

"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki