backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 132 comment(s) - last by I3lood.. on May 6 at 10:53 AM


Gartner's analysts argue that conflicting server needs are increasing, neccesitating Windows to adopt a multi-kernel approach or perish under bloat and complexity.  (Source: Gartner)

The analysts say that Windows is simply to big and simpler and more targeted versions need to be developed.  (Source: Gartner)
A controversial analysis by Gartner looks into Microsoft's Vista woes

Its no secret that Windows Vista wasn't the resounding success that Microsoft hoped for.  While Microsoft managed to push decent sales, it failed to surpass Windows XP's success and received a largely critical reception from the press.  Microsoft is taking the situation seriously, and is pushing aggressively to replace Vista, with Windows 7 in 2010, hoping for better luck.

Much of Vista's failings were due to something entirely out of Microsoft's control including poor driver support from hardware partners.  However other parts were admittedly Microsoft's own doing, such as inaccurate hardware compatibility claims and its UAC popups. 

Fortunately for Microsoft, its competitors have failed to present a cohesive alternative, with Linux still struggling to gain marketshare and Apple OS X still relegated to Apple-endorsed hardware.

A new analysis from Gartner warns though that Windows is on the verge of collapse under its own weight and that if it doesn't do something quickly it is a matter of inevitability that a more able competitor will eventually dethrone it.

Gartner's Michael Silver and Neil MacDonald carried out the analysis.  During a survey, which was just one part of the analysis, the pair posed the question of whether Microsoft needed to radically alter its approach to Windows to stay viable to a room full of IT managers and executives.  Half the room raised their hands.

The problem, the pair says, stems from Microsoft legacy support, followed by increasing complexity and hardware issues.  Silver offered the anecdote that his customers have been calling him asking if he advised waiting for Windows 7 and skipping Vista, as Windows 7 is allegedly going to be more lightweight and modular.  Silver acknowledged that his advice to these inquirers was to only adopt Vista on an attrition basis; as XP PCs died, he then would advise replacing them with Vista PCs.

MacDonald pointed out that server demands are evolving in different directions, making multiple kernels one possible approach for Windows.  He says that Windows is already too bulky and complex, and that simply adding on more complexity will lead to the downfall of the OS.  The pair both advise that Windows create multiple versions focusing on individual customer niches.

This may be a somewhat controversial proposal, as many already complain about the multiple Windows SKUs.  However some of these complaints focused on varying levels of functionality, so perhaps an approach delineated purely by target group would be better received.  MacDonald suggests these different versions be virtualized, but warns that Microsoft won't take warmly to such a proposal.  Says MacDonald, "Microsoft doesn’t like anything in between Windows and the hardware. Ninety-five percent of its revenue comes from OEM’s."

The analysis demands Microsoft must reduce its development times, provided more innovation, deliver more inter-platform consistency, and solve compatibility problems among various Windows varieties.  The pair also suggest that Microsoft tailor fit the operating system to specific applications, limit what applications can do to improve security (the One Laptop Per Child project's OS is among the few platforms to currently do this), make migration to new versions easier, and simplify licensing.  Says MacDonald, "Something as common sense as ‘I’d like Office to go with me’ doesn’t work under current licensing."

The take home message of the analysis: replace Windows, lock-in needs, and adopt more predictable product schedules.  The type of Windows that the analysts desire would be tailored to location and to a users identity, or as they put it provide "a composite adaptive work space".

The pair's analysis will likely be extremely controversial.  While Windows may eventually move away from legacy support, it makes billions in revenue off it, making it unlikely to want to leave it.  Further, fear of alienating customers will likely dissuade it from radical strategies such as multiple kernels.  Nonetheless, the commentary is an interesting take on Windows' problems and what might be done to fix them.


Comments     Threshold


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

Vista
By Elementalism on 4/13/2008 6:22:09 PM , Rating: 5
People want their cake and to eat it too. For years people pissed and moaned about the security issues surrounding Windows 98 and XP. Microsofts addresses it with something like UAC(which is present in OSX and I believe Linux in some form) and they complain. They want better driver support and whine the x64 version wont install unsigned drivers.

And I dont understand how Windows is going to collapse with a 91% market share. Now it might be marginalized if people start using other devices they previously used a desktop or laptop for. But I dont think anything is going to topple Microsoft this generation of OS's.




RE: Vista
By realneil on 4/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: Vista
By cputeq on 4/13/2008 8:37:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Ubuntu and OSX trump Vista in every way except hassles


Supported hardware?

Major software titles?

Gaming support?

Try again.


RE: Vista
By realneil on 4/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Vista
By weskurtz0081 on 4/13/2008 11:43:45 PM , Rating: 5
Wasn't OSX recently the easiest hackable OS? A guy easily cracked OSX in day one, while it took two to get into Linux and Vista, and the Vista exploit was a pretty complicated one, that used 3rd part software. Yeah, Mac is pretty secure right? Only while the market share is nearly nothing. Wait for Mac market share to get to a point where hackers bother wasting time to write exploits for it, if Mac is ever able to get market share that high that is.


RE: Vista
By retrospooty on 4/13/2008 11:56:09 PM , Rating: 3
YEs, it was...

1st cracked, Mac, 2nd Vista, 3rd one of the Linux's (I think Ubuntu)


RE: Vista
By JoeBanana on 4/14/2008 10:04:53 AM , Rating: 2
Was Ubuntu hacked at the end? I didn't see any news on dailytech or did I missed it?


RE: Vista
By darkpaw on 4/14/2008 11:44:08 AM , Rating: 5
It wasn't, but there was a release from the organizers that said it was mostly due to no one actually trying.


RE: Vista
By JoeBanana on 4/14/2008 2:09:41 PM , Rating: 2
Is it that hard? There must be a hole somewhere. Although I hadn't had any problems till this day with my Ubuntu.


RE: Vista
By darkpaw on 4/14/2008 2:31:49 PM , Rating: 5
As someone that works in security I have a few opinions on this as reasons why the Linux laptop wasn't targeted:

1) Prestige: Hacking OSX or Windows will do a lot more to get your name in the press then hacking Linux.

2) Ideology: A lot of the people that develop exploits are also backers of Linux, they wouldn't necessarily want their favorite OS to look as bad as the others. Working in security it's pretty much garunteed you'll be using Linux, as there really is nothing better then BackTrack. A lot of people tend to get far too partisan over operating systems though. All OSs have security vulnerabilities, it's just a matter of level of protection vs people actively seeking exploits.

3) General interest: The event organizers said there just wasn't much interest in trying to hack the Linux system at all http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com...

Its not to say that the Linux machine couldn't have been hacked, there's always buffer overflows to find in applications. Most hacking classes/books actually teach Linux first due to the availability of source code, you can go out and download a vulnerable version and learn to write shellcode against it and actually see the vulnerability in the code.

I don't even know which apps were installed on the Ubuntu machine for days 2 and 3, but I'd bet there was at least one vulnerability. On of the organizers quoted in the article I linked actually says the Flash exploit would probably have worked in Linux too after modification.


RE: Vista
By mikefarinha on 4/14/2008 4:03:17 PM , Rating: 3
I'm pretty sure that they said the exploit that was used to hack Vista was also present in Linux.

It was a Java/Flash exploit I believe.


RE: Vista
By mixpix on 4/15/2008 4:49:47 PM , Rating: 3
The point was the hack the OS and gain root access.

Objectives:
Day 1: Hack the OS using the system itself.
Day 2: Hack the OS using programs included with the OS.
Day 3: Use 3rd party programs not included with the OS.

Results:
Day 1: None of the operating systems were hacked.
Day 2: The Mac was hacked using a Safari vunerability.
Day 3: Windows and Mac were hacked. Linux was not.


RE: Vista
By jtesoro on 4/14/2008 12:46:47 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
All of my hardware is supported...

Major software titles don't impress me...

I can do all of the things that I need to on my Mac


Psssst... I'll let you in on a little secret: the world doesn't revolve around you.


RE: Vista
By retrospooty on 4/14/2008 10:11:40 AM , Rating: 4
Aw, let him have his fantasy, and ignore the fact that 91% of the whole world, and 99% of the business world (including the companies that manufacture Mac's for Apple) all run on windows.

Yup, Foxconn and the other contract manufacturures Apple uses all use windows too. They should come with a label. "this Apple Mac, and the whole process it was built with including planning, parts ordering, logistics, shipping, manufacturing, QA, Engineering etc etc... was all done on the PC".


RE: Vista
By freeagle on 4/15/2008 6:48:49 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
was all done on the PC


Mac is also a PC


RE: Vista
By retrospooty on 4/15/2008 1:14:05 PM , Rating: 1
Only because it has to be to get work done. not because the Mac isnt capable, but because the business world runs on windows.


RE: Vista
By freeagle on 4/16/2008 5:20:16 AM , Rating: 2
what I meant is that there is no reason not to call Macintosh a personal computer. It shares all the characteristic with all other personal computers around the world. The only difference is, that it's, officially, the only computer capable of running Mac OS X


RE: Vista
By spluurfg on 4/17/2008 7:14:16 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, both of them are 'Personal Computers', but the PC term dates back to the IBM-PC, which was really the first major example of a platform where third parties could produce hardware/software for it (i.e. IBM compatible). The major competitor at the time was the Mac, hence the PC versus Mac thing.


RE: Vista
By I3lood on 5/6/2008 10:53:18 AM , Rating: 2
LoL... I hate jerk offs like you who always beat their chest about the popularity of their preferred system, all that means is that you are a sheep with no imagination? tell me can microsoft make u roll over and play dead too? haha comeon get back on track guys! Vista is a disaster pure and simple yes? BLOODY OATH IT IS! I have it, went from xp sp2 to this and my god, big mistake!

I would almost pay the extra to roll back. Vista is not simplified, its hard to properly customise it (my parents would both be totally lost and afraid if trying to use this system lol) and it has stupid little pauses where the cpu seems tied up. VERY ANNOYING SYSTEM! microsoft is definitely not my hero, never really was. And if microsoft keep producing rubbish like this and office, my god they will never be my hero!

Bring on linux, get those guys off their collective asses and start producing some stuff that actually works and works properly! dont know why they make it a religious rule to keep on revamping the system every 6 months, especially when its not enough time to iron out all the bugs and what not in the current one. Meh im sick of the computer world not getting it right actually, maybe I should transfer courses and do software development instead of multimedia so I can create my own OS that actually WORKS! lowest common denominator rubbish needs to STOP!! Get multiple versions of the same OS out there to suit the multiple versions of users, from old people beginners to 1337 hacker losers who jerk off on writing viruses. cater for all!

Who's with me on this thought?!?


RE: Vista
By Shadowmaster625 on 4/14/2008 9:21:40 AM , Rating: 2
Fairuse Wizard 2 does ipod converts just fine. It's free, it's on XP, and it's as easy to use as any mac program. And you dont have to spend an insane amount of money on mac hardware.


RE: Vista
By DrKlahn on 4/14/2008 12:59:23 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Mac has a complete set of WORKING programs included with the OS, So does Ubuntu.
Install Vista on a machine and then, right away,...put in a DVD Movie and try to watch it,.....nope! Jump through the Vista hoop before you can do this simple shtuff !


If Microsoft included that software they would be slapped with a lawsuit for including it like they have so many other pieces of software they have attempted to include with the OS.


RE: Vista
By darkpaw on 4/14/2008 1:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
No kidding, Mac users love saying how much software comes with their Mac, but Apple and everyone else would be lining up to sue MS if they included more applications.


RE: Vista
By FITCamaro on 4/14/2008 1:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All of my hardware is supported,....


It's easy for an OS to work on all hardware when all hardware consists of extremely few platforms. If Microsoft could specify and control what hardware Windows ran on, it'd be even more secure and stable. Apple gets to say what hardware its OS runs on. When drivers are released. Etc.

It's almost not even fair to compare OSX and Windows. It's like comparing the quality of air in a clean room to that of outside.


RE: Vista
By mixpix on 4/15/2008 4:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
Well, of course all your Mac hardware is supported, it's created for Macs. I call BS on all your hardware being supported by Linux, although you may just be lucky enough to not have anything that needs complex drivers.

I've never tried putting a DVD onto a iPod on the PC, but the free software to rip a DVD is available easy enough to use. But don't you think that it's a little easier on the Mac since it's an Apple based product?

Windows, Linux and Mac all have WORKING programs included with the OS that are good enough to get the basics done. Operating systems are not all-inclusive packages.

I've been able to DVD's right after an install of Vista, it does support DVD playback out of box.

Mac gaming is getting better now that they have PC based hardware. Without the switch to Intel the Mac would have been in the same position.

Vista's security and stability are probably it's finer points. I think most of it's main draw backs are drivers and slow performance on older hardware. The OS is rock solid, but the same could be said for XP. It's usually the 3rd party software and drivers that screw everything up.

I am not too impressed with Vista's overall speed in gaming, but for anything besides gaming it should do just fine. Vista's desktop is faster than XP for me.

Stupid FUD about the OS you don't like doesn't make anything better. All operating systems suck in their own way, get over it. Use what works the best for you and what you can afford.


RE: Vista
By Belard on 4/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Vista
By retrospooty on 4/14/2008 9:53:56 AM , Rating: 1
How then do you explain the MS made software called MS office for Mac?


RE: Vista
By Belard on 4/15/2008 3:59:31 PM , Rating: 1
Explain what?

MS Office for Mac isn't the same as MS Office 2007.

Open Office is very much if not completely compatible between Windows<>Linux<>Mac<>OS2

What is still sad, to this very day - MS-Word's spellchecker is still half-retarded. Final Write from 1990 could still blow it away in miss-speelings. 1-2 letters in a mis-speeling that's not on the list and MS-Word goes blank. But Final Write's stupidity was the lack of an UN-DO function since the programmers thought it wasn't that important. But AREXX automation was, go figure. ;)


RE: Vista
By SoCalBoomer on 4/14/2008 12:16:40 PM , Rating: 3
HOW bad?

How about getting stable drivers for Linux? My wireless (built in to my Dell laptop, which came WITH Ubuntu) still is flakey at best. My nVidia video drivers suck. The list continues.

On the other hand, while drivers are still the primary issue with Vista, their stability is light-years ahead of Linux.

Obviously Apple doesn't have to deal with that since they are the epitome of closed-source and closed-standard as far as hardware goes. While they are using PCI-e, it's still their version and things have to work with their system, not the other way around (or you could put a 9800 series in a Mac. . .)


RE: Vista
By Donkeyshins on 4/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Vista
By Belard on 4/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Vista
By The Sword 88 on 4/14/2008 9:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah abou tthe hardware running on Linux, I don't think so. I have persoanlly had all sorts of trouble with my laptop's touch pad, speakers, video card, self assembled external drive using a WD internal drive and an enclosure, and wi-fi. As soon as I didn't need linux anymore I went back Windows and upgraded to Vista and I have been using since a couple months after it came out with no trouble.

While I recognize that many people have trouble with Vista hardware support it is nowhere near as bad as Linux.

As for Mac hardware support? What support? I can't upgrade my desktop when it starts sucking if I have a mac. So instead of dropping a couple hundred and crackng open the case do put some new parts in I have to buy a whole new box and deal with that.


RE: Vista
By strmbkr on 4/14/2008 11:17:31 AM , Rating: 2
That's why I don't like the Apple ads, especially the one about software and hardware choices/compatibility.


RE: Vista
By CheesePoofs on 4/15/2008 3:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Supported hardware?

Linux actually has significantly better hardware support than Microsoft. Most devices I've ever had to use have drivers built into the OS.

quote:
Major software titles?

How 'bout free versions of nearly all major software titles?

quote:
Gaming support?

Ok, maybe, but Linux has a kickass minesweeper app :p


RE: Vista
By raphd on 4/13/2008 9:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
you can disable that to :)


RE: Vista
By realneil on 4/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: Vista
By raphd on 4/13/2008 9:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
double click on the icon, search for something like "change the way it notify's me" Did this 6months ago so I cannot fully recall but I think thats it. Ill check when I get home


RE: Vista
By realneil on 4/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: Vista
By jrd1mra on 4/14/2008 12:12:42 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Vista
By Sazar on 4/14/2008 12:19:01 AM , Rating: 1
Just go to start and type "user accounts" in the search box and you are there.

Then all you have to do is click on the option that says turn user account on or off and voila.

Simple.

Not enough people use or bother to learn the benefits of indexing or searching in Vista, or even use the natural langauge options available in the searching :)

With my several gigabytes of archived emails spread over multiple .pst files, I rely greatly on indexed search within outlook AND through the Vista search function (synchs perfectly).

Ah, joy :)


RE: Vista
By AlexWade on 4/14/2008 9:24:34 AM , Rating: 1
Even quicker solution:

Go into the control panel and type "UAC" in the search box.

Even though has many flaws, it does have some nice things too. The search box is a very nice feature. Once you put back the Run command, you can get what you need quickly.

But please forgive me as I make this quick rant: Vista will you please REMEMBER MY FREAKIN' FOLDER PREFERENCES! I swear even WHEN I customize the folder, it changes it back to something I don't want at some random time.


RE: Vista
By jrd1mra on 4/15/2008 1:32:29 PM , Rating: 1
I absolutely love the Vista Indexing an searching function. it shows as you type! MUCH improved over an OS's search capabilities.

However, I had it on my old XP computer (it has been available on XP SP2 for some time) The computer had 1 GB of Ram and the search indexing slowed it wayyyyy down and didnt work half the time.

I have had no problem with Vista, I started with 2 GB of Ram and a dual core processor, nothing major, and it worked fine, shut off UAC and notification (took 5 minutes).

I have had a problem with a couple of older programs, but I either A. Run them in xpsp2 compatability mode or B. have found simple solutions by spending 10-15 minutes on Google. I dont see what the fuss is about. Get a decent computer people! Stop buying the cheapest thing you can find and complaining about it.

Try running Photoshop or adobe CS3, Or any decent PC Game etc etc on one of those "budget models". You will quickly see that those programs will not run well either, the problem is not VISTA. Its your computer. You would have the same problems trying to run Windows XP on a box that meets the minimum requirements for Windows 98.

Of course I have 4GB RAM now but heck it was only $58 dollars for the extra 2GB at newegg so why not?


RE: Vista
By goku on 4/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Vista
By Noliving on 4/14/2008 8:39:17 AM , Rating: 2
Did you even bother to read Microsoft's policy on Driver signing Requirements for windows vista and server 2008?

If you did you would know that you can install any type of unsigned driver on windows vista.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/drvsign/drvs...

Besides do you even know what Driver Signing does or how it works?


RE: Vista
By Micronite on 4/14/2008 10:55:37 AM , Rating: 2
True.
Vista64 is a little more strict than the 32-bit version. Although they allowed test-signing for developers (when in test signing mode) which is nice for those of us who try to make our drivers work in all flavors of windows.

I think the signing requirement is great! It's a pain in the neck when you're developing a driver and trying to test it across multiple platforms, but there is quite a bit more security. Hardware-level access should bring with it added responsibility which is what the signing requirement is trying to accomplish.


RE: Vista
By goku on 4/15/2008 5:26:20 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously you are not aware of 64bit vista, the only version of vista that should've been made. (aside from not being made at all)

And driver signing is bullshit anyways because we still end up with unstable drivers from known companies, all this does is squeeze out the small developer. It's basically of no benefit to anybody as it causes unnecessary resubmissions to microsoft, not to mention the fact that drivers that clearly should NOT have passed pass anyways.


RE: Vista
By Noliving on 4/20/2008 12:24:29 AM , Rating: 2
I'm actually quite a bit aware of vista 64. Driver signing is not bs considering it improves the security. Name a single small developer that has been squeezed out.


RE: Vista
By smokedturkey on 4/14/2008 12:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
I've used Vista x64 Ultimate since day one, and i don't see what people are complaining about. I have had ZERO problems!
UAC can be turned off, windows update is nicer than XP and most hardware companies have drivers by now. Haven't really had any software issues yet and I run a wide variety and all my games work great! I heard that nvidia had some issues at first (I'm an ATI guy) but I understand that has been worked out. What the hell is the big deal??? Vista uses more memory, and what I mean by that is Vista allows more memory, way more than XP. I currently have 2gb and Vista flies. I turned off Superfetch and Indexing, that helped TONS! A little program called VLITE will customize a Vista installation before it's installed, kinda like 98Lite/XPlite did but even moreso. I got Ultimate down to less than a 1.4gb on disk and that's including SP1 and most of the BS fluff gone that Microsoftpenis engineers put into the OS.


RE: Vista
By aos007 on 4/15/2008 2:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
Zero problems on 64-bit eh? Just last Tuesday MS realeased about 6 updates, TWO of which cause MAJOR SHOWSTOPPER bugs - KB948590 causes BSOD during boot, the KB938371 kills OS mouse drivers so you can't use mouse any longer.

And that's just last week. This week, I had to run a certification exam application (written in Flash in 2005, I believe) in a virtual PC on XP because I wasn't able to open or even save exam results - after spending over an hour answering questions of course (I was given either exceptions or "default printer not set up correctly" error message were received - totally false of course). Developer's problem? Maybe, but I just want the damned thing to WORK. What's the point of an os that can't run a 3 year old application? Isn't the whole point of Windows and its market share APPLICATION COMPATIBILITY? I wasted about 2-3 hours in the last week just dealing with update and application fallout. And that's JUST last week.

The best I can do on my 34GB OS partition is to have several gigs free - and that with all user files and paging files off the partition, of course, except for basic software and utilities which take a few gig. 10G maybe, if I turn the restore options (how many previous file revisions are kept) to minimum. But careful, without those restore options those two failed updates would be fatal and would require full reinstall (or some fancy, lengthy repair work). In any case, Vista Ultimate 64 bit on 1.4G? No way. Not even close.

It's time for Microsoft, both managers and engineers, to start experiencing what the rest of us in IT had to deal with for quite a while now - FIRING and LAYOFFS.


Problem with Vista
By DEredita on 4/13/2008 8:50:47 PM , Rating: 4
The problem with Vista is that the majority of consumers want the cheapest notebook (or computer) money can buy. That usually means they are getting a computer which doesn't have nearly enough power to run Vista properly, and also they are then further bogged down with OEM junk-ware, most of which also boot with the system.

I have Vista running on a Dell Optiplex 745 w/ a E6600 processor, 4GB ram, and an ATI X1300 Pro at work. I have the hard drive partitioned with 32-bit and 64-bit Business editions of Vista running on the partitions. Both versions run perfectly on this system.

I have seen Vista running on those Best Buy fire-sale laptops. It's a real burden to run, since they generally only come with 512MB ram. One of these laptops I upgraded to 2GB of ram, and the machine ran like a dream after that (Vista score of 2.3 after upgrade). Before the upgrade, it took the machine nearly 5 minutes to fully boot, after that, it knocked the time to boot to around 1 minute.

I think Microsoft should have made the requirement for Vista to be 2GB of ram. I bet if this was the case from the beginning, Vista would've received a much warmer reception. It's actually good, if and only if it has the right amount of hardware to run it. With ram prices as cheap as they are today - there should be no reason why computer manufacturers are selling Vista computers with less than 2GB of ram.




RE: Problem with Vista
By bpabbott on 4/13/2008 10:50:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The problem with Vista is that the majority of consumers want the cheapest notebook (or computer) money can buy. That usually means they are getting a computer which doesn't have nearly enough power to run Vista properly

Hmmm ... actually, I think it means that Vista doesn't run on the computers it is supposed to ;-)

I'll also point out that Apple's original Ti-PowerBook ran OSX 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 (the original OSX and 4 major upgrades). Finally with 10.5 I needed to buy a new Mac. I'd also point out that I found each upgrade to be more useful and responsive than the prior.

I'm not trying to sell anyone on Apple, only pointing out that it *is* a Vista problem.


RE: Problem with Vista
By Accord99 on 4/13/2008 11:29:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd also point out that I found each upgrade to be more useful and responsive than the prior.

Which isn't too hard when the first iteration of OSX was so horribly unoptimized and slow.

quote:
I'm not trying to sell anyone on Apple, only pointing out that it *is* a Vista problem.

On the other hand, when OS X was released, Apple wouldn't even have hardware that would run OS X at a decent speed for two years.


RE: Problem with Vista
By killerroach on 4/14/2008 8:56:18 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're both right... OS X kept getting faster because it was so dog slow in the first place. The fact that it is a usable operating system now is a testament to Apple's commitment to the platform as well as expanding hardware capabilities.


RE: Problem with Vista
By JoeBanana on 4/14/2008 10:16:43 AM , Rating: 2
The best apple decision was to switch to UNIX base. It now can be called a system. With that move it also gained a lot of features of unix base system like freebsd and linux.


RE: Problem with Vista
By 16nm on 4/14/2008 10:29:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact that it is a usable operating system now is a testament to Apple's commitment to the platform as well as expanding hardware capabilities.


More like it is a testament to Apple's commitment to Intel's hardware that made the difference IMO.


RE: Problem with Vista
By DEredita on 4/14/2008 9:36:09 AM , Rating: 2
My primary computer is a 2.16 GHz (Core 2 Duo) Macbook, with 2GB of ram. I was very happy with OS X, until Leopard came out. I upgraded from 10.4 to 10.5, and then there was nothing but issues. It ran slower, it was loaded with bugs, I got a few kernel panics and was forced to power the machine off, etc... I have switched back to 10.4 on the Macbook.

On my Windows systems, I made the upgrade to Vista in March 2007, and have been happy since then. Is XP better - yes and no.

I like the light weight of XP, and even plan on getting the second generation of the Eee PC, when it comes out this June so I can run XP on the Intel Atom architecture with 2GB of ram. Although, I am kinda curious how Vista would run on a 1.6 GHz Atom w/ 2GB of ram. But, likely, I will run XP to get the most performance out of it.


RE: Problem with Vista
By SoCalBoomer on 4/14/2008 12:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
However, each required and used more memory than the last and claimed a larger footprint. Same with NT4 to 2K, same with 2K to XP (huge step, btw, which is why, along with driver support, stickers started coming out with the Designed for XP on them. . .)

In any case, OSX SHOULD be getting better. While MS uses service packs (free), Apple keeps charging you for dot revisions. . .theoretically, 10.5 is still only a revision of that horrid 10.0. Vista is entirely new (Windows XP 6) while 10.5 is "merely" a dot revision.


RE: Problem with Vista
By FITCamaro on 4/14/2008 1:31:00 PM , Rating: 3
OK and OSX has been out around as long as XP and each of those upgrade you have to pay for. So not only are you paying more for a Mac than a PC. But you're also paying for service packs.


RE: Problem with Vista
By cmdrdredd on 4/14/2008 1:11:17 AM , Rating: 2
You're right DEredita, the problem with Vista is the fact that people expect it to run on bargain bin systems. It does, but it runs rather poorly. It's the fault of OEMs bundling in Vista on a computer that isn't up to par.

Most people who have issues with Vista have store bought systems that won't upgrade hardware above what it comes with. They then get on the phone and complain. Everyone who builds a custom system knows what they need in a computer to run Vista and their apps properly.


RE: Problem with Vista
By vapore0n on 4/14/2008 8:41:19 AM , Rating: 2
I think Microsoft is still part of the problem, as they discontinued XP and made Vista too heavy for bargain systems.
(yes yes, they extended XP, just because Vista wasn't as good as they though it would be)

Enter Windows 7.

Or at least that's what they promise.


RE: Problem with Vista
By SoCalBoomer on 4/14/2008 12:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
The extension is still in the future - Vista has been out for a year and MS has always continued selling their old versions for at least a year. Win2000 was available well after XP came out (as was the entire Win9x family - I was still purchasing systems with Win98 on them long after Win2000 had gone away.) WinNT4 was available long after Win2000 came on the scene.

By long after, I mean at least a year and a half.


RE: Problem with Vista
By retrospooty on 4/14/2008 9:56:50 AM , Rating: 1
There are alot of issues with Vista... People running it on slow bargain bin systems is not a high percentage of them. There are plenty other real issues and complaints as well.


RE: Problem with Vista
By DEredita on 4/14/2008 10:36:13 AM , Rating: 2
Like? Only issues I have seen were on several bargain bin computers due to insufficient hardware/ram.


RE: Problem with Vista
By retrospooty on 4/14/2008 12:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
I agree most of the really bad ones are solved with the regular updates MS has put out over the past year, I use Vista myself and have no problems with it, it runs great for me and I wont be going back to XP for my main system... But the fact that you and I and many other arent having issues, does not mean there are no issues... Too many people are having too many problems to put it all off on subpar systems. I would say that now (after all of the updates) Excessive bloat is probably the biggest issue. I have seen Vista run excruciatingly slow on ample systems (Core2 with 2 gigs ram with high end Nvidia nd ATI cards, and very fast hard drives) It does happen, and it isnt user error, and it isnt cheap systems. If it doesnt happen to you, I am happy for you, but dont rule out every one else becasue yours and mine works.


RE: Problem with Vista
By Oregonian2 on 4/14/2008 7:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem with Vista is that the majority of consumers want the cheapest notebook (or computer) money can buy. That usually means they are getting a computer which doesn't have nearly enough power to run Vista properly, and also they are then further bogged down with OEM junk-ware, most of which also boot with the system.


True. What they want is the notebook/computer they already have, that's the cheapest one.


Virtualization
By Segerstein on 4/13/2008 5:33:15 PM , Rating: 4
I mean, there a billions of different takes on future of Windows. Saying that Vista needs too powerful hardware is not a valid point.

Windows needs legacy support. Today's hardware makes it easy to run all copies of Windows, from 3.1, NT, 98SE, XP SP2 at once. If they just added interfaces (similar to "published applications") with seamless integration with host desktop, one would get stability, security and full backwards compatibility.




RE: Virtualization
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/13/2008 5:35:39 PM , Rating: 3
It seems to me like virtualization is the key for legacy -- just run a lite version of your OS of choice and emulate everything from XP down.

But I think that goes with Silver's statement about modular and lightweight; build much lighter kernels and just run the other OS on another core if you need legacy support.


RE: Virtualization
By Polynikes on 4/13/2008 7:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
I like that idea. It would be nice if Microsoft did do something like the article mentioned, having different kernels for different niches. An ultra-lightweight kernel designed primarily for virtualization would be really nice.


RE: Virtualization
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/13/2008 10:53:44 PM , Rating: 2
Problem is that most of the security problems rely on bugs and flaws in the legacy systems. You can't maintain excellent legacy support and fix security holes.


RE: Virtualization
By christojojo on 4/14/2008 12:24:07 AM , Rating: 5
I think, with plenty of hind site, that MS should have offered only the 64 bit version of Vista (someone else suggested this on DT).

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense.

MS could have dual boot option for a discount (Vista primary/ Xp secondary) that way owners could have a brand spanking new OS with the security of having a "grandfathered" and "more stable" OS. (Yes, I know the problems of Xp, Linux and Apple fans)

This way it would assure a steady migration to Vista with less bad press.

When MS has enough of an installed Vista, it could have just discontinued the XP dual boot discount.


RE: Virtualization
By Pottervilla on 4/14/2008 10:54:08 AM , Rating: 2
Could Microsoft bundle all it's past OS's together on one DVD (or Blue Ray) to be installed at will--during or after setup--in a multi-boot configuration? I've read where people can hibernate and then boot up into one of their other OS's, but have never been able to myself (I'm triple booting Vista, XP, and Linux). Then, the user could switch between programs in the different OS's in probably 30 seconds, max.

Speaking of Linux(if I may be allowed to give my opinion)...

I loved the install (easy), and the interface seemed pretty good (even though I'm used to windows), but Linux will never rule the world until it supports cheap components (opinion). I have a wireless networking card that cost about $15 and works perfectly with windows, but Linux doesn't take the driver from the disk, and doesn't have a built in driver that works. Read: I can't access the internet. Therefore, I have booted into Linux twice since I installed it about five months ago.

I did some reading on Linux before I installed, but didn't find a database of drivers. Maybe someone that knows better will enlighten me. I certainly was disappointed that I couldn't use it more often.

Jonathan


RE: Virtualization
By imperator3733 on 4/14/2008 12:48:45 AM , Rating: 2
I think it would be best if they made a new, modern kernel that broke backwards-compatibility but then also included a seperate virtualized environment for running "legacy" apps. The legacy stuff wouldn't be able to mess with other things, and the new kernel could be smaller. Because of the virtualized environment, consumers wouldn't be able to notice anything different.

I hope they do something like this for Windows 8 (it's probably too late for 7).


RE: Virtualization
By vapore0n on 4/14/2008 8:35:25 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't that what they tried to do with Vista x64?

Where you get a virtualized execution of 32bit apps.

Or at least they tried to.
Some 32 bit apps wont even install in my x64 Vista system.


RE: Virtualization
By imperator3733 on 4/14/2008 6:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think its a similar idea, but they can probably be separated even more. They could also take this opportunity to get rid of the Registry, DLL Hell, and other things.


Windows Will Collapse
By rasmith260 on 4/14/2008 12:52:04 AM , Rating: 2
I don’t think the story is too far off in terms of the Windows Collapse; it’s just that the collapse won’t come from another Desktop OS competitor like Apple or Linux, but from devices that provide both connectivity to the internet & mobility.

While most of us are probably serious PC Users, the reality is that 99% of what most people do could be accomplished with a decent Cell Phone & a PS3 (or Xbox360 if you prefer); and it’s just a matter of time before people figure that out. It’s no secret that even the best Laptops still can’t compete with the best Desktops, but that hasn’t stopped Laptops from outselling Desktops, and why, because of it’s mobility and the ability to be connected at all times.

As the price of cell phone use drops (with all-you-can-eat plans from Verizon & AT&T); the move from Desktops (and Laptops) will only quicken. Look how fast IM’ing & E-Mail has given way to Text Messaging, and why, because a PC is not always handy, not even a Laptop, but a Cell Phone is. With my Cell Phone I can listen to music, listen to the radio, do text messaging, watch tv, movies, use it as an alarm, use it like a thumb drive, take photos, surf the web, and make phone calls.

The PC (which is the domain of the Windows OS) is slowly being relegated to the workplace and schools while Cell Phones and Gaming Consoles will provide the Connectivity, Communication, Information, Data & Entertainment most people desire. It’s only a matter of time before people ask themselves one simple question; “If I can accomplish everything I need with my Cell Phone & Gaming Console, why do I need a PC?”, and when that happens, Windows will Collapse.




RE: Windows Will Collapse
By ATC on 4/14/2008 2:02:23 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with almost everything you said. I'm one of those people who can definitely do without a desktop. A notebook IMO has replaced the desktop for a good portion of the population.

What we're going to start seeing soon is a fight between ultra portables and smart phones. But I just don't see smart phones replacing notebooks any time soon primarily because of their size; while an advantage for travelling, it quickly becomes a negative for everyday use.

Who wants to send all their emails on an iPhone? A few here and there is fine, but it's not the all-in-one solution. The same goes for web browsing, photo editing, video editing etc....all those can comfortably be done on a notebook but it's far fetched to think they can be comfortably done on anything smaller.

I use both OSX and Vista, and Vista has been trouble free for me and it's running on an old dell. Even though I favour OSX over Vista, I just don't think windows has anything to worry about in the short term. And in the long term, who knows... certainly not some analyst from Gartner.


RE: Windows Will Collapse
By djc208 on 4/14/2008 7:25:33 AM , Rating: 2
I think smart phones could win out if they release the right peripherals. If you can provide docking stations that are basically the laptop interface (screen, keyboard, touchpad, USB port/card reader), or port replicators, the smartphones would give you the best of both worlds in one device. At least once processors like Atom and similar start making their way into these devices, we're not there yet.

There will always be people who need the extra power/flexibility the more powerful ultraportable offers but I think for many business users, and even many people in general it would work well enough.


RE: Windows Will Collapse
By djc208 on 4/14/2008 7:36:48 AM , Rating: 2
Well, maybe "Windows as we know it". You have to figure this isn't going to be an overnight change, and MS already has their fingers in both other areas (consoles and smart phones).

Basically I think that's what the analyists were trying to say. That if MS works on a small, lightweight core that will work on just about anything then what you'll see is one Windows OS that can be added to or stripped down as required to fit on either your cell phone, XBox whatever, laptop, desktop, refrigerator, etc.

Like the oil companies Microsoft is too big and too powerful to just "collapse", their core may move away from where it started but Shell won't close it's doors when oil runs out any more than MS would if "Windows as we know it" dissapears. They'll just be involved in whatever replaces it.


RE: Windows Will Collapse
By JoeBanana on 4/14/2008 10:42:42 AM , Rating: 2
Yes but microsoft should fear linux on this segment because linux is a very flexible and scalable operating system(for example it runs on arm, powerpc, ...) and is even now being used in embedded devices.

I think the microsoft has to and will develop an operating system for embedded devices(besides CE).


Gee, SAFARI=OS X? That's news to us...
By TheInformer on 4/13/2008 6:41:33 PM , Rating: 4
To wit:
"Fortunately for Microsoft, its competitors have failed to present a cohesive alternative, with ... Apple's OS X languishing under its own problems..."

Go read the link. It's got NOTHING to do with OS X. It's about the Safari Browser. The link is even titled that way, which makes me believe there's a reasonable chance the author doesn't understand the difference.

On top ot that, why would anyone with a measurable brainwave listen to anything Gartner publishes? This organization has a history of senseless rambling predictions, and here's a great example. Their articles are designed to one thing: Attract attention to Gartner. Anything resembling reality is entirely secondary.

I'm no fan of Microsoft, but the contention that Windows is going to “collapse” anytime soon is absolutely ridiculous. Look no further than the fact that thousands of commercial software corporations understand and rely on the fact that Windows provides a worldwide standard operating system to host applications on the consumer's desktop, not to mention the substantial stake hardware manufacturers have in Windows. Unless and until the world changes to a hosted application model, for such a "collapse" to take place, an entire industry would have to shift. It takes years for an OS to mature to the point that it can support the kind of demands placed on Windows today. The fact that for the most part, Windows does its job fairly well is a rather significant achievement.




RE: Gee, SAFARI=OS X? That's news to us...
By realneil on 4/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Gee, SAFARI=OS X? That's news to us...
By bety on 4/13/2008 7:26:58 PM , Rating: 1
LOL! It appears he's changed it. Good catch.


By realneil on 4/13/2008 7:34:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, he's paying attention to us,...and we to him.


Thin Win Clients.
By teckytech9 on 4/13/2008 10:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The pair also suggest that Microsoft tailor fit the operating system to specific applications, limit what applications can do to improve security (the One Laptop Per Child project's OS is among the few platforms to currently do this).

Every interation of Windows uses more and more code to bootup its operating system. The thin client approach to computing seems more efficient, since why do I need to waste time waiting for the system to bootup with features of the OS that I wont ever use? Bloatware in an OS just causes more problems for existing hardware and buying new hardware is not always economical for simple basic applications like web surfing, e-mail, word processing, etc.

The only collapse I see is the weight from the ever increasing lines of code and the raw hardware requirements needed to support it.




RE: Thin Win Clients.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/13/2008 10:55:18 PM , Rating: 3
I'm guessing you guys are absolutely oblivious to Server 2008 then. Look into it.


Again, don't take this too seriously.
By Domicinator on 4/13/2008 7:25:04 PM , Rating: 3
All you have to do is look at the author of the article. Jason Mick takes stories like these and runs with them. He injects his own little brand of FUD along the way, puts a picture of Steve Ballmer next to the title, and Voila!!!, you have a classic Jason Mick Windows bashing article. He'll jump on anything anti Windows that he sees and turn it into "news".

In my eyes, as long as DailyTech considers this good reporting, I don't consider it a news site anymore. I think it should be considered more of a glorified blog. And I certainly don't take anything with Mick's name on it as fact. He exaggerates to the point where you just can't take his articles seriously. For example, when SP1 was being beta tested, he wrote this article about how SP1 "kills computers". I won't get into the details, but it was all just BS regarding an installation problem that MS was made aware of BECAUSE OF the beta testing.

It's all BS, guys. MS surely has had their share of blunders and missteps, but so have a lot of other companies. It's not like one giant corporation is the good guy and one is the bad guy. That's preposterous. Sony, Dell, HP, Apple, etc. all want to rob you blind just as much as MS does. MS is the one that's the most fun for DailyTech and the rest of the world to hate. It gets web hits. It creates arguments, etc. But what it does not do is convince me that I should think one way over another. This site has become the last place I look for a solid opinion on something.




RE: Again, don't take this too seriously.
By bety on 4/13/08, Rating: -1
By bobdeer1965 on 4/14/2008 3:21:18 AM , Rating: 2
You have given the best post on this topic.

And I am not be sarcastic.

I am totally agreeing with you.

They need to shape up a bit.


Collapsing Windows
By Diogaknees on 4/13/2008 11:31:12 PM , Rating: 4
Didn't I see Mick with a long white beard carrying a sign saying "The end is near" -- or was he standing in for Chicken Little?




Backward Compatibility
By ryanw on 4/14/2008 5:09:49 AM , Rating: 2
They are blaming a lot on the "backward compatibility" issues which causes the OS "bloat". I don't want to start a mac vs windows flame war, but microsoft could learn yet another lesson from Apple and become successful once again.

The article talked of a potential of "virtualization" and extensive additional SKU's to maintain different kernels. Having them introduce more complexity is totally wrong. The way I read it in the article seems like you would have to have something like VMWare running an entire copy of windows to retrofit old libraries and run an old version of windows to run your legacy apps.

The logical "correct answer" would be for them to take hints from Apple's technology like "rosetta" and "carbon" technologies that would bridge the gaps but have the legacy support isolated and contained to not interfere with future growth and expansion. This would run legacy apps slightly to substantially slower but it would be something transparent and not require another installation of windows. It would be an additional package that you could install or not install on your system. A 'check box' during installation or even an additional package you could add if you didn't add it at installation.

If you were to run a legacy application it would say "this requires XYZ legacy component to run this application, please put in windows disk and hit continue to install this legacy support, or hit cancel."

Legacy support applications will not run as smooth and fast as software engineered for Windows 7+ but installing these legacy components would not hinder the speed or stability of the system. The risk would be contained in the virtualized installation of the legacy component, while the legacy application is running.

Anyway, that's what microsoft SHOULD DO. Loose the baggage and make a fresh API with all their lessons learned over the years and make developers migrate to the "new and improved API" like Apple has done 7 or 8 times over the last 20+ years. Sure it pisses off developers, but they'll get over it once they get used to the new environment.

Now why do I freely offer this advice? I have become a HUGE Mac/OSX fanboy in the last 6 years. Mostly because microsoft windows has chewed me up and spit me out for the 15 years prior. I had enough. 6 years ago I decided that I was done with microsoft for my small business and home use. I wanted to deal with different headaches rather than the same microsoft ones over and over again. I decided that going through the learning curve and having to use different apps and different OS qwerks was a better choice rather then keep having the random problems that microsoft's OS was giving me depending on it's mood.

I would love to see microsoft become a real platform that I could depend. I would love to see them make an OS that I would willingly use once again. Until then, I will live happy on my slew of Apple products including my 2.8ghz 8 processor MacPro with 8 GB of ram & 4 TERABYTES of disk, g4 powerbook, AppleTV, airport expresses, macbooks, etc.. Let's just say, my wife and I live a life without viruses and random OS issues and have for the last 6 years. Everything "just works".




RE: Backward Compatibility
By Reclaimer77 on 4/14/2008 4:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but microsoft could learn yet another lesson from Apple and become successful once again.


If you define success as having 7% of the PC market while surviving entirely on the sales of an MP3 player and cellphone....then uhhh yeah, MS has a lot to learn from Apple apparently.


Article pics
By PICBoy on 4/15/2008 12:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
Jason never stops surprising me with his article pictures. This one is as dark and creepy as they come. Seriously, keep up the good work with those pics ;-)




RE: Article pics
By AssBall on 4/16/2008 4:07:29 AM , Rating: 2
My very first thought was:

Darth Balmer...

I am not a Jedi Yeti...


By BrianK on 4/13/2008 10:21:13 PM , Rating: 2
Take a look at who's behind these remarks... These guys are hardly industry oracles! Gartner group has been amazing wrong on many issues and these guys don't have the credibility to have be given so much coverage..

http://www.gartner.com/AnalystBiography?authorId=7...

http://www.gartner.com/AnalystBiography?authorId=8...




Vista...
By XHUMAN on 4/14/2008 1:41:58 AM , Rating: 2
No O/S currently available is 100% secure. There is no such thing as 100% secure software. It's the nature of the beast. There are literally thousands of potential hardware and software configurations that software developers are forced to contend with, to expect all of the proverbial bases to be covered is a wildly unrealistic notion. IMHO.




Experiment
By ToeCutter on 4/14/2008 9:39:50 AM , Rating: 2
Vista Bad

Mac OS X Good

Comment Rating -1




Oh, heavens!
By patriot77 on 4/15/2008 1:12:03 AM , Rating: 2
I have been using Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit on my HP notebook, without any nVidia graphics, and with 2 GB of DDR2 667 MHz RAM and 160 GB of HDD. It works very smoothly, it has never crashed and has had NO problem ever. I do not understand why people hate it so much! I have installed all updates and hotfixes and DreamScene and everything without a glitch, without frequent restarts or anything similar. I've also never had driver problems, even though I use a wide variety of plug n' play devices. Vista is a truly great OS.




Haven't had an issue with Vista
By jlanders646 on 4/15/2008 11:13:23 AM , Rating: 2
I understand that people don't like certain features and functions of an OS. I've always found no matter what that when you reinstall an os you have to change certain settings. Vista is no different in that way. Usually the first thing I do is turn UAC off, is it a good feature? For some I would think so, for most, No. Besides that I've been installing vista at my work place for awhile, we've got about 12 machines that run vista business both 32 bit and 64 bit, not one driver issue or problem.

At home I use Vista 64bit Business for gaming. Paired with an E6850 @ 3.6, 4gigs of ram, 9800GTX. Would my computer perform better under Xp? Yep. Will I downgrade? Nope, Why you ask? I like Vista, I like the way it works and looks and, to me, I seem to have less problems out of Vista than Xp. Just my two cents.




The Truth
By SamoanPower on 4/15/2008 9:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
How can anyone defend Vista with a straight face when court documents and internal email messages from Microsoft execs PROVE that Vista is a sham.




By crystal clear on 4/14/2008 2:52:03 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
A new analysis from Gartner warns though that Windows is on the verge of collapse under its own weight and that if doesn't do something quickly it is a matter of inevitability that a more able competitor will eventually dethrone it.


Another analysis from Gartner that can be summarized as-

"It is more fun to arrive at a conclusion than to justify it."


As for the next operating sysytem,it should be based on the guiding principle-

sense & simplicity




Vista not a bad product
By andrinoaa on 4/14/2008 3:43:53 AM , Rating: 1
I don't think that vista in itself, is a bad product. I think that its been badly handled by MS. From a third party point of view, it sucks because you have to have a driver for XP, a 32 bit driver and a 64 bit driver. MS claims that pcs are vista ready when in fact its only 32bit ready or not enough ram. This last piece really really gets me upset. Everything is vista capable until you want 64bit operation then its all shit from there.
I think its am Americam malaise. as an example, you guys love the T model ford chassis with a newer body shape and call them SUVs eg F100 lol and so, MS has taken the step of hedging all bases (ok, maybe a log shot, but worth the joke ! )
Seriously, MS underestimated the demand for "new technology" and so overestimated the legacy requirements. Its probably a fine line, but I don't like their judgement.
I have a pc that is 5yrs ahead of the operating system, not happy jan!




so wait
By tastyratz on 4/14/2008 3:33:12 PM , Rating: 1
This guys report basically states that Microsoft has to stop making such a sloppy product and fix everything people bitch about microsoft for? MS has made sloppy products for years and they still have dominating market share.

Abomination products like vista make them lose 2% of market share and it doesn't mean a thing.

MS is so huge and in bed with all the OEM's that if ms windows became a standalone bootable version of ms paint they would still hold the majority of sales.
Vista isn't here to stay because its accepted praised and wanted in the retail channel where the consumer makes the choice... Its here because you simply wont have an option to buy anything else windows soon enough.




Lashing,...LOL!
By realneil on 4/13/08, Rating: 0
Just give me Windows XP & SP3
By cheetah2k on 4/14/08, Rating: 0
By CheesePoofs on 4/13/2008 4:51:38 PM , Rating: 4
Please read the article before you complain. This isn't at all about how much Vista sucks, it's about an analyst's take on the future of Windows.


By bety on 4/13/2008 7:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
That information is relevant as a set-up to this article. Further, it happens to be true, the fact that hearing it in a couple lines bothers you so, implies a lot of personal feelings about the issue.


By retrospooty on 4/13/2008 5:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
Likewise the broken record of Vista defenders stating exactly what you stated... You have to realize that even though Vista works for you, with your particular hardware (and it certainly works well for many others too, including myself for the past 2 months) that there ARE issues with it, and many people are having REAL problems with it, not user education issues, but real issues. There are 100's of thousands of PC's out there and they are being used 100's of thousands of ways. For you to just assume Vista is good because it works good for you is a bit short sited, and not taking the whole picture into account.


By 306maxi on 4/13/2008 7:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
Thing is with most crashes it's usually faulty memory or a bad PSU. Most people running Linux aren't going to use PoS components in their PC's and with a Mac you don't get a choice of what to use and to be fair it's generally good. Problem is windows boxes are sometimes built with any old crap and it shows. You get crashes because of memory and because of unstable PSU's. Hence why Windows gets accused of being unstable when it really isn't.

I've been running Vista since early 2006 in various forms and when I've run it on a decent computer (I mean quality not spec) it's run well. But when I ran it on a cheap box my g/f had laying around it was unstable as anything. Now I could blame that on Vista or I could blame that on the cheap crappy components used in the PC.....

If most people didn't buy the cheapest, crappiest, lowest specced piece of rubbish in the computer store then they'd probably like Vista a whole lot more. But since people always buy cheap crap people will continue to think that Vista is crap.


By raphd on 4/13/2008 9:24:59 PM , Rating: 1
exactly. I worked retail and wow, those computers they sell are pretty bad. They sell quad core gaming computer with 300watt power supply? sure it will run but the parts they use are the bare minimum and any expanion with just cause problems.

Of course all these computers are "made for vista" for MS takes the slack for shitty HP/Gateway/Acer PC's. Befriend someone who builds them and enjoy.


By bobdeer1965 on 4/14/2008 3:08:34 AM , Rating: 2
You worked retail????

I hope you talked better at work than you use the english language.

And bad hardware is generally in the pieced together custom built computers. At least when people are not very knowledgeable about computer parts.
Then they just shop by price.

As the post above inplies: If you buy good hardware and assemble a custom computer you will have a lot better Vista experience.

VISTA IS STABLE

If yours is not then something needs attention.

As another post said: Cheap power supplies, Bad memory, or bad drivers.

That is the root of almost ALL Vista problems.


By retrospooty on 4/13/2008 11:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
Vista has alot of issues... Crashes arent too high on that list.


By Donkeyshins on 4/14/2008 2:43:49 PM , Rating: 1
Please, elucidate us. What are the issues? If it is UAC, then turn the fucking thing off! and accept that if you do stupid things, you may get a virus/worm/trojan/etc. If it is compatability with older programs, then those programs probably are/were doing something that violates the Vista security model (e.g. opening ports and then not closing them, etc.). If it is driver support, then place the blame where it belongs - on the manufacturer of the hardware. If it is the whole 'Vista Ready' issue, then lay the blame at the feet of Will Poole (who needs to be fired) and move on.

On the other hand, if it is performance with less than 2GB of RAM or with an older video card or older processor, then you are perfectly right - XP and Linux does better with older hardware.

However, run Vista on a modern mid-range machine (or a machine with the same specs as a current generation Mac), and you'll find it runs pretty damn good (provided you have 2GB of RAM). And hey, 2GB of RAM is less than $50 right now, so what are you waiting for? Stop buying lattes at Starbucks for a month and you'll have the money to buy some RAM.


By retrospooty on 4/14/2008 7:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I have Vista and use it and I have no issues. and no UAC is a setting, not an issue, nor are any of the other ones you mentioned. I posted this somewhere else here.. "I would say that now (after all of the updates) Excessive bloat is probably the biggest issue. I have seen Vista run excruciatingly slow on ample systems (Core2 with 2 gigs ram with high end Nvidia nd ATI cards, and very fast hard drives) It does happen, and it isnt user error, and it isnt cheap systems. If it doesnt happen to you, I am happy for you, but dont rule out every one else becasue yours and mine works."


By Donkeyshins on 4/14/2008 10:29:46 PM , Rating: 2
Points taken (and yes, UAC is a setting, but so many people act as if it was a tool of Satan).

I'll admit it: I've had one bad experience with Vista, and that was on a Toshiba tablet PC provided to me by work. To be fair, though, I wouldn't be surprised if some not-insignificant portion of that experience wasn't directly related to the Toshiba badge (or for that matter, the whole Tablet PC aspect, which I'm not bought into at all ). It was replaced with a slower HP laptop (albeit with 4GB instead of 2GB of RAM) which has run flawlessly. Maybe I'm lucky (or perhaps you are unlucky) but I don't think that Vista is as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

And just to be clear, my comments were not meant as a direct attack against you, just the whole 'Vista Sucks, XP Rules!' attitude that prevails today. Peace?


By retrospooty on 4/14/2008 10:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
No worries. =)


By archcommus on 4/14/2008 1:18:59 AM , Rating: 2
That is a good point, I don't mean to be short-sited. But like others have said, many problems people experience with Vista are due to crappy hardware and crappy manufacturer-provided drivers, not Vista itself at all. The fact is it's not a bad OS and the people who invest time into learning it and updating their hardware and software appropriately typically do really like it. So yeah, it might just be a few lines, but it doesn't paint the whole picture, makes Vista sound worse than it really is, and appears as an introduction to EVERY Vista article, which is unnecessary and redundant (relevant to this article, true, but could've been said in two sentences instead of two paragraphs).


By Belard on 4/14/2008 2:31:00 AM , Rating: 1
There are not enough articles about how much vista blows chunks.

Vist does EVERYTHING slower compared to XP, some things are HORRIBLY slower. Unpack a 40mb Zip file and it takes Vista over 10mins while XP will do it in 20seconds! But with Vista - you get a pretty animation while it "calculates" for 2 minutes to tell me that it'll take over 10mins to unpack the stupid file! The file was an XP driver I downloaded from HP... I canceled the UNZIP, copied them all to a USB key - murdered Vista (didn't bother with a shutdown to waste another 2mins of my life), installed XP and then unpacked the files... ah so much better.

Yeah, Vista is a POS. Even the desktops with the "vista" logo can run better with XP. What is it... 15-20% of Vista PC owners go and BUY $100~150 WindowsXP to replace vista... funny sick.

I have an un-used XP-MCE discs/Key I'm saving for my next upgrade in a few months, I'm going to buy at least 1 more - perhaps 2-3 to resell for $200~300 when people are desperate. And looking to buy a Lenovo notebook with XP while I can. People are spending extra $$$ to buy Office2003 for compatiblity.

SP3 for XP has been reported to make the system run a bit faster. Sp1 for vista has killed systems (SP1 / SP2 also caused problems) and typically makes systems run even sloooower.

Vista offers NO real features over XP... oh yeah, DX10. Everything requires more clicking... some areas, while look simplified - are just hidden or removed. A good example is the more complicated but prettier Display Properties (now called personalized - which makes even less sense) or the lack of functions from Network connections Icon... the list goes on and on.

There is a 500K add-on that'll turn the XP Start button/menu into the Vista version... You'd be hard press to tell the difference. A programmer made a module for XP to run Vista's side-bar tools (whoope-do) until M$ threaten lawsuits. Overall, the visual look of Vista is not state-of the art... its easy enough to do on XP without eating the memory or CPU cycles... Nvidia's XP driver does a MORE functional Transparancy than Vista. When I move a window, it becomes Transparant... so again nothing special.

Vista is nothing more than WindowsNT 5.2/ME-2.


By archcommus on 4/14/2008 12:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
Your post is so wrong. Yeah, Vista had some file operations performance issues at release. Most of them have been improved in SP1, not worsened. The rest of the OS is just as fast as XP for those with the proper hardware. If you're complaining it doesn't run as well on the same hardware you ran XP on, well that's just stupid, XP is 7 years old, what did you expect.

And Vista offers no new features over XP? Are you crazy? How about Aero, Superfetch, built-in indexing, new Explorer, improved audio support, and the improved security? There is more but those are the major things that affect my daily usage of the OS tremendously.


but vista does suck...BIG TIME!!!!!
By rickk1 on 4/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: but vista does suck...BIG TIME!!!!!
By 306maxi on 4/13/2008 7:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is many people including myself really like Vista. You're kinda stating the obvious...... some people will always love a new product and some will always hate a new product. I think we all agree that ME was rubbish. But Vista is far from being as bad as ME. Been running Vista since release day and never had a crash. Doesn't seem to get more bug ridden and slower and slower like XP does either.


RE: but vista does suck...BIG TIME!!!!!
By rickk1 on 4/13/08, Rating: -1
By raphd on 4/13/2008 9:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
had vista on my laptop for 6 months. flawless. I do use xp pro on my main computer though.


RE: but vista does suck...BIG TIME!!!!!
By ultimaone on 4/13/2008 11:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
umm i'm sorry but with only 512 mb of ram in the "test" system

no wonder vista lost, it didn't have enough ram

you should do a test with 256 mb of ram and compare 98 to XP then, and 98 will do better than XP...XP needs at least 512 mb of ram to work efficiently

vista needs 1 gb or more to work efficiently, otherwise
its just using the hard-drive

so how about a review that doesn't compare apples to oranges, ok ?


By mindless1 on 4/15/2008 3:51:05 AM , Rating: 2
You still don't get it. XP with it's lighter memory footprint allows caching more, is still quite a bit faster with 1GB or more memory, plus the lighter code base requires less memory bandwidth.

Apples to apples is that adding more memory and every other thing possible only makes Vista seem like less of a slug, but it never comes close to catching up.

yes, the same is true for XP versus Win9x (being faster) except for one important difference, 9x doesn't support as much memory so there is that built-in caching bottleneck.

The main thing is, people didn't want to sacrifice the very real performance losses even after paying hundreds to upgrade or buy new systems. They don't care about Vistas supposed benefits, they just wanted XP's problems fixed and got a steaming pile instead.


RE: but vista does suck...BIG TIME!!!!!
By Sazar on 4/14/2008 12:22:49 AM , Rating: 2
That's your opinion :)

Vista may seem slower in some benchmarks here and there but, in actual usage on a daily basis in the office and at home where I do a lot of multimedia work and work on massive spreadsheets, Vista is much faster than XP.

There is no update that I am aware of for Vista that makes it reboot constantly. Through my technet subscription, I always have the latest beta patches and I haven't had a single one glitch on me yet.

Btw, I've been using Vista as my primary OS since the 2nd Beta.


By mindless1 on 4/15/2008 3:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
No, it's not opinion. Vista is proven slower. It is scientifically, reproducibly, slower at the tasks you list as well as others on equal, modern, systems meeting MS spec for Vista capable, even beyond that spec as fast as it gets.

This is fact, the only way XP can seem slower is if you'd dorked it up over time and tried to compare that to a clean install of Vista.

You are not aware of any update that makes a system reboot because you are ignorant of the issues. Instead of commenting as if your opinion matters you should have either done the research or refrained from comment. :)


By bobdeer1965 on 4/14/2008 3:23:07 AM , Rating: 2
And you are stupid 2nd edition.


RE: but vista does suck...BIG TIME!!!!!
By 306maxi on 4/14/2008 4:47:20 AM , Rating: 2
What kind of site tests Vista on an old 533mhz FSB P4 with 512mb of ram? That's like getting a 1.2L Micra, a 2L BMW 3 series and a Ferrari 430 and testing them all on a tyre that's made for the Micra. Of course the Ferrari is going to have difficulty putting down all it's power on skinny tyres made for a small car. If they'd just given it 512mb more memory it would have been a lot better. My old Northwood 2.8c with 1gb of RAM and a 256mb 6600gt was fine for Vista. Although of course XP ran faster. But what do you expect? The PC has a mainboard and CPU that are 5 years old. Nothing that's 5 years old should be able to run the latest OS. The Processor that they've used is even older than a 2.8c and it's got an even slower FSB and we all know that back in the day P4's loved having a lot of memory bandwidth.


RE: but vista does suck...BIG TIME!!!!!
By mindless1 on 4/15/2008 4:03:42 AM , Rating: 2
On the badded most expensive modern technical marvel due out next year and each year thereafter, Vista is slower. There is no such thing as a magical spec that makes it as fast, the most conservative and kind thing that could be said about the situation is that if only a powerful enough system is used then the human using it doesn't notice the slowdown as much. To be fair, that's all that really matters in that all that is required is the user be satisfied but that is not the topic at hand nor accounting for the cost to get there.

Don't you get it? That idea that a higher spec system is needed is proof all by itself.

Nobody should ever need to upgrade their hardware to do the same jobs on a newer OS. The OS is a means to run the jobs, it is not an end onto itself.


By 306maxi on 4/16/2008 5:22:47 AM , Rating: 2
The thing is every OS has higher reccomended specs. My old 2.8ghz p4 with a gig of RAM was great for XP. Are you saying it should be great for Vista?

I don't get this whole bloatware thing either. Getting a REALLY quick PC is soooo cheap these days. Memory costs hardly anything, I got my 3Ghz e8400 with it's 2gb of Corsair Dominator and an X1950 XT 512 for quite a bit less than what I paid for my very middle of the road PC 5 years ago. You can build a PC with operating system, decent mobo, CPU, ram and graphics card for under £400 here in the UK.

This is the first time I can remember in ages where there's been a price war between AMD and Intel, a price war of sorts between ATI and NVidia and also low DRAM prices all at the same time. This means that anyone off the street can afford a decent PC and enthusiasts can get something truly high end for not much cash......


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki