backtop


Print 94 comment(s) - last by grandpope.. on Jun 10 at 2:09 PM


Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer
Release date is in line with previous reports, holiday-season ready

Windows 7 will indeed be hitting in time for the holiday season.  The much-buzzed about operating system is set to inherit the operating system throne from the much-maligned Windows Vista, with general commercial availability starting on October 22 according to a Microsoft press release aired today.

Previous reports had come quite close to pegging the release date, with October 23 being the cited date in many reports.  Bill Veghte, senior vice president for Microsoft's Windows, helped announced the true date, stating, "We feel confident that we will deliver Windows 7 with our partners on Oct. 22."

Microsoft faces tremendous pressure with the release.  The company has been hounded by its investors in recent months for revenue drops related to the recession.  These investors are quick to note that Windows Vista, while a solid seller, failed to surpass Windows XP.

Despite these problems, Vista and other Windows operating systems accounted for roughly 30 percent of the company's $60B USD in sales in 2008.  Windows-based operating systems are currently installed on approximately 90 percent of the world's personal computers. 

For Microsoft, the finalized release date represents both good news and bad.  The good news is it will make the lucrative holiday shopping season, a frequent time for people to buy new systems.  The bad news is that it will miss the equally lucrative back-to-school shopping season, where parents and college students typically purchase systems.

Microsoft does face some pressure, too -- Apple will be releasing its Snow Leopard OS sometime this summer or fall, and Google recently announced that its Android OS was coming to netbooks, courtesy of Acer.  The challenges, for now, though are limited -- Windows 7 will almost certainly lead these next generation operating systems in sales.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Yeah.
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/2/2009 3:57:29 PM , Rating: 3
Who/What do you think had the biggest impact on the negative perception of Windows Vista?

I'd say it was Apple with the attack ads on Vista and the propping up of Mac OS X over and over and over again. It may have not been "competition" so much in the sales race, but OS X definitely won in the matter of public perception/image.


RE: Yeah.
By lotharamious on 6/2/2009 4:00:05 PM , Rating: 5
I think it had to do with a simple 3-letter word...

FUD

Everyone knows some "computer expert" that is also a "Vista expert" who likes to tell all their friends how horrible it is. Then we all found out that this "computer expert" doesn't really know anything about any operating system and then everyone realizes this "computer expert" is also a "dumb ass".


RE: Yeah.
By pequin06 on 6/2/2009 4:21:02 PM , Rating: 5
I remember standing in line at Microcenter and this older lady had just bought a new computer, never been out of the box and she was demanding an XP downgrade.
When asked what was wrong she gave the "I don't know, I just want XP. I heard Vista wasn't any good"
Yet her computer was still in the box.

*SIGH*

I'm glad the propaganda about Windows 95 never worked but of course the internet isn't what it is today.


RE: Yeah.
By Oregonian2 on 6/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah.
By invidious on 6/2/2009 4:53:18 PM , Rating: 5
Had to do with him being a dumb ass


RE: Yeah.
By Alexstarfire on 6/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah.
By pequin06 on 6/2/2009 5:32:36 PM , Rating: 5
I was really bummed out when Quicken 99 didn't work on Vista.
I had years of data that I couldn't access anymore.
So what did I do? I got a new version of Quicken.
I hated it.
It was a big deal for me at the time. My backup files would not work. The data couldn't be read or wouldn't convert correctly to the new version of Quicken. Lost years of stuff.
So I said, "Well, I'll try MS Money." It sucked and didn't do much better. Then I looked into GNU Money or whatever it's called and that quickly passed as I said, "Linux? Yeah right!".

Did I blame Vista? No. It never crossed my mind that it has to be Vista's fault and that I should've stuck with XP.
I was using legacy software and you can only squeeze soo much time out of an older no longer supported piece of software.


RE: Yeah.
By Oregonian2 on 6/2/2009 6:32:58 PM , Rating: 2
I might point out that you're really talking about something different. Having Vista and expecting full compatibility (however desirable) is one thing. But a person who doesn't WANT the upgrade to Vista and just wants to replace his broken machine with XP like the old one had -- happy with NOT getting the enhancements that the new OS provides (but still is given Vista by the store) is another.

Especially when XP was still being sold at the time.

Note that he was NOT an unhappy camper in the end, because he did get the OS replaced by the store with XP, which worked fine for him. Just that if someone asked him what he thought of Vista, they'd get negative comments -- ALL of which were perfectly valid.

P.S. - We've been using Quicken since it was a text-based application (pre-Gui). Its database has updated just fine since then and that data from forever ago is still there along with our current data (Quicken 2008 I think). But we're running XP still, so in your case Vista may or may not be involved -- but I'm surprised you lost data. Possibly it's because of the huge time-gap you had between versions (we're usually maybe 3~4 years between versions of Quicken).


RE: Yeah.
By Luticus on 6/2/2009 7:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
Can I expect my new machine to come fully equiped, driver ready and supported with widnows 3.1 on it... Because everything after that is just bloat... </sarcasm>

What the manufacturer loads is what the manufacturer loads, plenty of custom PC shops were, and probably still are, selling PC's with Windows XP on them.


RE: Yeah.
By Oregonian2 on 6/3/2009 4:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
Like I said, when he bought his machine, XP machines were being sold at the same time, and not as a "downgrade" as it was in later years. When Vista was released, XP was not canceled from the marketplace simultaneously. It was at the time of that initial release that he had his problems. The very first release of Vista had problems for some people. It wasn't bug free, even if many here think it was (which brings up the question as to what the SP's are for if it was bug free to begin with).


RE: Yeah.
By Luticus on 6/3/2009 7:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
I don't ever tell anyone it was bug free. I just tell them that it isn't garbage like everyone makes it out to be... It was a new OS, of course it will have some glitches, the two SP's added features, patched potential security holes, and yes, fixed a few bugs.

Even I didn't switch from XP to Vista overnight. There was about a 6 month period when I was still using XP as my primary OS after I’d bought my first Vista copy. I did this because my main system was well established and had lots of software and hardware that didn't go over to Vista very easily. After finding numerous patches and “work arounds” for the software and replacing all out of date hardware I managed to switch fully, that computer to this day still dual boots though, just rarely to XP. It's since been replaced by a new "Master computer" (as I tend to call my main system) that is completely Vista x64 Ultimate. The new one does, however, use a virtual machine with XP on it for security reasons and also test purposes.

Anyone who doesn't anticipate a turbulent switch when they buy a brand new OS is in for a surprise. I did and therefore I had an easy time of it, lost no data, and managed to eventually get everything I need working in vista just fine. The only hardware I needed to replace was my TV tuner card which was about 5 years old at that point. My point is that these problems are not limited to Windows; this is with any operating system. I hear OS9 to OSX wasn't exactly smooth sailing either.


RE: Yeah.
By Luticus on 6/3/2009 7:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
Oops... I meant for the reply to my own post to be a reply to this post.


RE: Yeah.
By Donkeyshins on 6/3/2009 3:57:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Guess Battlefield 1942 is just a POS then.


No, but EA is for not releasing a patch to fix it for Vista.

quote:
...on top of other very unnecessary changes.


What changes, pray tell, are these? Better security? Improved UI? Improved network stack?


RE: Yeah.
By Oregonian2 on 6/2/2009 6:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
He had some specialized software where the company that made it didn't exist anymore, but where the function was not something doable with some other company's. So no Vista upgrades were available. He had bought the new machine ONLY because his old one died gloriously and fully.

He also had some other software that didn't work, but Vista when it first came out had some Microsoft-known compatibility shortcomings that wasn't fixed until about a year later (after my friend had his Vista machine). Upgrading application software for that would not have helped at the time.

Someone may be a dumb ass, but it wasn't him. i'll let others reading this decide who is the dumb ass.

He's an electronic engineer, btw.


RE: Yeah.
By SavagePotato on 6/2/2009 6:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
Your friend wants to use specialized software that was made by a company that no longer exists then guess what, he better learn to suck it up or find new software.

This has no effect on grandma standing in a line demanding an xp downgrade because your friend told her vista sucks for a reason this stupid.

Yes your friend is a dumbass.

I am going to go one better and say you are as well.

Good day.


RE: Yeah.
By Oregonian2 on 6/2/2009 6:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that he should have just bought new hardware and installed his old XP copy on his new hardware, but I think your position is elitist.


RE: Yeah.
By Oregonian2 on 6/2/2009 6:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
P.S. - Unlike you, I prefer to be a dumb ass than a smart ass.


RE: Yeah.
By Luticus on 6/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah.
By Oregonian2 on 6/3/2009 4:56:26 PM , Rating: 2
Note that at no time (check my postings) did I say Vista Sucked. That is only your position. I think it's probably fine after the first SP. I gave no advice whatsoever in any direction -- I only described the problems and actions by someone I know. Something that's a matter of fact, not really arguable unless one thinks I'm making him up. Any conclusions were made by readers.

Vista got some bad vibes from those with problems upon the first release (first impressions are the strongest). Those who know people who had problems will shy away from it. I think that's natural -- but some here such as yourself think it isn't. You're entitled to your opinion based upon your experience, but others also are justified in their opinions based upon their experiences too. Just because it's made by Microsoft and is "new" doesn't mean it's automatically wonderful and bug free.

P.S. - I've some friends who are software design engineers at Microsoft, they're very smart and great engineers (I'm a HW engineer), but they'd be the first to admit that Microsoft software isn't perfect.


RE: Yeah.
By sbtech on 6/4/2009 7:27:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft software isn't perfect

Neither is Linux, OSX, OS400, and so on.

Your point being?


RE: Yeah.
By Oregonian2 on 6/7/2009 3:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
When Microsoft released Vista, there was an API for something (graphics related I think) that wasn't ready for release quite yet. Had been supported in XP, but the Vista version wasn't completed at that time they wanted to release it -- so they released Vista anyway. Applications that used that API stopped working, and upgrades from the vendor were pointless because it wasn't their problem. Microsoft knew about it upon release and said they'd release it later (which I think they did in the SP) -- but in the meanwhile everybody who had working software in XP and upgraded for whatever reason no longer could use those applications, and the ONLY possible fixes were to either go back to XP or to wait until the Vista version was released (meaning like a year later). Some of those who didn't use software requiring that API thought anybody complaining was a whimpy cryer and an anti-progress anti-microsoft idiot. Those who did use such software did NOT like Vista at the time nor those who belittled them for not loving Vista despite their predicament.


RE: Yeah.
By Luticus on 6/4/2009 9:45:15 AM , Rating: 2
I think I mistook someone else’s post for one of your earlier posts and got confused after reading down this far about who said what. I was in a hurry, what can I say...

Sorry for anything in my earlier post that doesn't apply to you... basically sorry for the whole post. :-)

I know I can be a bit outspoken sometimes, especially when I feel strongly about a particular topic, but I’m always will to admit when I screw up. I think that's a good thing.


RE: Yeah.
By rudolphna on 6/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah.
By Aloonatic on 6/2/2009 4:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
That's just it, an "older customer". These people (and many others) probably buy the same clothes, the same type of coffee, have the same thing to eat every Monday, see the same friends on Thursdays, the same.... They don't like change. Also, that copy of XP was probably the first that they have really got to grips with and managed to make that new fangled computer work on. They don't want to have to start all over again, or even the think that they will have to.

That represents a bit of a challenge to the marketing peeps if they want people like the lady you refer to to switch over as they want to know that Vista/7 will be similar to XP and all they have learnt using XP wont be wasted, whilst also convincing them that it's different and they really need to move on and adopt it.


RE: Yeah.
By sxr7171 on 6/2/2009 10:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
Well you can install Vista and make it look like XP in nearly every way if you wish.


RE: Yeah.
By Aloonatic on 6/3/2009 2:37:14 AM , Rating: 3
Well, not really.

Never underestimate the confusion that simple changes to start menu layouts, placement of icons, the icons themselves and even the text under the exact same icon, can cause the general/casual user.


RE: Yeah.
By Belard on 6/3/2009 5:40:44 AM , Rating: 2
While *I* do not like Vista, I do recommend that a person buying it for home use with todays computers should at least give it a try... after all, $350 gets you a decent dualcore/3GB PC nowadays for an entry computer. Yeah, there are $285~300 PCs with Celerons and DCP with 1~2GB that are simple not worth it.

- - -

Windows95 Sucked ass big time. But it was MS's first consumer GUI OS. So while it crashed a lot, did a lot of stupid things (cannot locate modem driver, reload modem driver, retry?) It required constant re-installations, about every 3-6 months. Win98 was much better and SE was the best of the Win9x series.

In many ways, even XP has aspects of "This is more out-dated than Amiga".

For the typical home user today, Vista should be fine. But for many of us, it offers nothing.


RE: Yeah.
By saiga6360 on 6/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Yeah.
By birdshot80 on 6/2/2009 5:31:07 PM , Rating: 4
Uh, I bought Vista the week it came out and it ran just fine on my single core Athlon64 3700+ with 1 GB of RAM before I later upgraded. I also installed XP the day after it went gold on my 1.2 Ghz Thunderbird & 256 MB RAM. Both times I enjoyed the new experience and only encountered minor problems with my sound cards(both times caused by Creative's crappy drivers) So maybe the OS didn't suck. Maybe your PC sucked. Maybe you sucked. And if you are just regurgitating someone else's opinion, then maybe you suck for taking their word for it.

Baaaa!


RE: Yeah.
By saiga6360 on 6/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Yeah.
By fcx56 on 6/3/2009 3:20:43 AM , Rating: 3
Finally, go piss and moan someplace else for all of our convienence, including yours.

One day if you are open minded enough to revise your own version of history you'll realize that a majority of the problems were with lazy third parties waiting until the very last minute and usually another minute again afterwords to release proper drivers under the new driver models. I feel as bad for anyone with a Creative soundcard during this whole process (speaking from experience) as the people that read your pointless rant and were tasked with saving us all by downrating it.


RE: Yeah.
By CrimsonFrost on 6/3/2009 11:17:10 AM , Rating: 2
I call BS on that, I had literally the exact same setup as you. I thought I was the only poor sap trying to run it on that crap (for Vista anyhow) and it was horribly slow, couldn't play HD videos very well (lots of stuttering, etc etc), didn't like when I tried to run multiple programs at once, if I played music for instance it pretty much guaranteed that I shouldn't be doing anything else. Don't get me wrong, I like Vista a lot, but with a single core CPU and only 1 gig of RAM, shooting yourself in the foot would be a much better use of your time.


RE: Yeah.
By AlexWade on 6/2/2009 4:46:52 PM , Rating: 3
FUD was one factor. But what I found to be a big reason for Vista's bad reputation is people were attempting to install it on a computer with the minimum hardware specs. That ain't going to fly with Vista or Windows 7. So the net result was a computer struggling to do all the new stuff Vista does and being bogged down. And then people say that Vista sucks but in reality their computer sucks. People don't realize Vista is doing more than XP. So in their ignorance with the cheap or old computer they spread misinformation to others. Then the media picks up on it because, as Don Henley sang about, they need dirty laundry. The result is a self-perpetuating negative image.

With enough memory, Vista is really good. The extras on it do make life easier, such as the search box in the start menu and control panel. But those extras come with a cost of resources.

Having said all that, Windows 7 is a lot better than Vista. Perhaps Microsoft best consumer OS ever.


RE: Yeah.
By Alphafox78 on 6/2/2009 4:57:41 PM , Rating: 4
Win7 flys on my lowly P4 with 2GB of ram..
(its a WORK computer) *ashamed*


RE: Yeah.
By MonkeyPaw on 6/2/2009 6:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
That's more RAM than what's on my work PC. I just talked them into a 1GB upgrade last year. Before that, it had just 256mb--running shared graphics and Windows XP! And people wondered why some businesses passed on Vista...


RE: Yeah.
By Luticus on 6/2/2009 4:04:01 PM , Rating: 3
I think it's everyone’s preconceived notion that anything made by Microsoft automatically sucks.

When I worked as a custom PC retailer (had my own business/shop) back when Vista was brand new people would ask me if I tried the new Windows yet, when I’d say yes they'd ask "does it suck"... as if it couldn't possibly be any good.

I think it's the fact that Microsoft caters to the general public and the general public doesn't know enough about computers to form their own opinions so they listen to their Linux/Mac "guru" half tech friends who work "in the industry" and feed people misinformation with their biased opinions and their own addenda’s. That’s probably got something to do with it anyway.


RE: Yeah.
By Aloonatic on 6/2/2009 4:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure that that is really true, at least, in my experience people have some faith in MS.

The main problem as far as I can see (other than the general bad feeling for an OS coming along to replace the beloved XP which many of us forget is the first OS that many people have dared to and then become comfortable using) was that when people asked; "what does Vista do better than XP?" and the answer was.... It's more secure and..... that's about it. As always, people think that viruses and such happen to other people so it's not that important.

It wont be much different with Windows 7 really, but it will a) not be Vista and b) be the second release after XP so it simply must be better and they will have to have it.


RE: Yeah.
By invidious on 6/2/2009 4:55:21 PM , Rating: 2
If you think XP is perfect then you have very limitted expectations. Vista, especially Vista64 is a lot more stable.


RE: Yeah.
By Alexstarfire on 6/2/2009 5:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
That most certainly depends on how you use the OS. XP has more things that can break it, but assuming the users isn't a total f*cktard XP is quite stable. Only times I've had it crash is when it's overclocked. Which my motherboard decides to randomly overclock the RAM sometimes. Not sure why since it's not set up to OC the RAM. Anyway, not a software problem at all.


RE: Yeah.
By Aloonatic on 6/3/2009 2:31:50 AM , Rating: 2
That's just it, most people do have very very very very very limited expectations. They demand every little from their PC and XP used to do what they wanted and they knew how to make it work. Put yourselves in their shoes, and it can easily appear that someone is just trying to make you buy something that you don't need and don't know how to use, so will face a bill for the new OS and for tech support too. Is there any wonder that there was resistance?

As for "a lot more stable", I really don't think that that is the case. Almost all problems that I have seen with both XP and Vista (have recently seen BSoD on Vista, been a while on XP) have been caused by hardware faults. Rarely is it anything to do with the OS. What I have seen a lot of, and get a lot of reports of too, is that Vista may not crash but it does grey out and not respond for long periods of time, a lot longer than XP ever used to which used to lose faith in whatever was not responding and end it a lot earlier.

Vista64, who runs that at the moment? People here, and people with specialists needs. Not the general public though, not yet.


RE: Yeah.
By Luticus on 6/2/2009 6:57:40 PM , Rating: 5
That's another thing that irritates me, the misconception that there's nothing better about Vista than XP.

Here’s a short list:

Interface Changes

Aero

Added little check boxes on your icons so you can select more than one without using a quick command.

Improved start menu with instant searching/built in “run” field. With this you can type the name of the program you’re looking for and it will instantly search for it on the fly (based on your search index) and you can also enter commands directly as though it’s a run prompt.

Tree view start menu programs instead of popup menu style start menu items.

Dynamic live preview of content via ‘alt + tab’, or via mouse over the task bar items.

Improved control panel
In Vista, Microsoft has paired the configuration tool categorization efforts it began in XP with integrated search, which makes finding the tool you know exists a lot faster than scanning through a big list or spelunking down through Control Panel categories.

New Windows Explorer with drop down folder selection. It’s missing the directory up button but, meh.

Network map view

MUCH improved voice recognition capabilities!!!!!! This is WORLDS better in Vista than it ever was in XP. (If you’re wondering I’m referring to the speech recognition options in the control panel).

Security

UAC – annoying but more secure.

Windows Service Hardening technology limits the privileges of services and restricts the resources services can directly affect.

the data redirection feature facilitates application compatibility. Data redirection, also known as data virtualization, provides a driver for the file system and registry that will redirect writes targeted at certain protected locations

Crypto NextGen (CNG) is the next version of the Crypto API (CAPI) that provides a much more flexible and agile cryptographic development platform in Windows.

Vista also ships with built-in spyware detection software, Windows Defender and a new firewall that filters outgoing traffic in addition to the incoming traffic that the XP SP2 firewall filtered.

Bitlocker encryption (only certain versions)

Diagnostics

Overhauled Event Viewer

New Reliability and Performance Monitor

Taskmanager changes include a services tab and more information in the processes tab.

Reliability Monitor tool that displays a graph over time of all the software installs and uninstalls; system restore points; and hardware, application, Windows and miscellaneous error events that have occurred.

Vista also includes a new image-based deployment system.

Other improvements

64 bit with real support.

The ability to get windows media center on a “pro” version. XP MCE lacked the pro features such as domain joins.

IIS7, is included in nicer editions of Vista.

Subsystem for Unix based applications (control panel -> programs and features -> turn windows features on or off)

Better support for multilingualism – In vista you can have multilingual setups that are account based where as in XP it was system wide.

Direct X 10.1

This is just to name a FEW! Vista brings some decent to the table, it’s sad that Microsoft doesn’t advertise this and instead wants to get into a sniping war with Apple, not that the common use would know what half of this even says anyway.

Aloonatic, I'm not trying to say anything bad about you or anything. This is not directly directed at you in any way so please don't take it as such; your post simply sparked me into writing this when you said:
quote:
"what does Vista do better than XP?" and the answer was.... It's more secure and..... that's about it.

I just think there are a lot of people who don’t really know what the benefits of Vista truly are. I hope this helps people understand that there’s more to vista than eye candy and security.

Oh and here’s a couple of sources:
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Vista-Takes-Windo...
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc1609...


RE: Yeah.
By Aloonatic on 6/3/2009 2:15:05 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, I agree, there are a lot of things that are improved, but all most all of those things that you have mentioned will soon turn into white noise in the ears of the average user if you try to explain them to them.

They'll just ask you if they can still bid on eBay and send photos of their grand-kids to everyone, even though they really don't care about seeing 60 ever so slightly different photos of them.... Again. Then they'll think, I can do that in XP and think that they know everything they need to know, so why bother changing?

In saying all that, I've got my parents onto Vista and after a lot of phone calls about where this and that is, they seem fairly happy. Their new machine came with a much bigger screen with plenty of room for icon shortcuts without covering the photo of the grand kids wallpaper, which helped a lot, but never underestimate the confusion that simple changes to layout and organisation, even the small change to the start menu, can have to people who are not all that computer confident.

Many "computer experts" who deal with people (as I assume many of us end up being for family and friends) recommend they stick with XP and avoid the "rubbish" Vista simply because they don't want to have to teach them how to use their computer again from scratch, there were many times when I had wished that I'd recommended my parents stuck with XP over the last year or so.


RE: Yeah.
By sxr7171 on 6/2/2009 10:06:32 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed, some of these "work in the industry" types are the worst. They usually know nothing about consumer OSes or products because their job involves something totally different, the whole world and their sister take these people's word as gospel. I wish people would just admit that their job doesn't involve consumer PCs, instead of pretending to know everything.

What kind of dolt recommends Linux to someone who just barely learned how to manage an XP machine? There is major elitist attitude amongst many of these Mac/Linux types in that they know that they are using a system that minority of people use and now they can claim it is better just because most people don't use it.


RE: Yeah.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/3/2009 7:11:33 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately "those that work in the industry" can be split into several different camps. But there are the good ones, and the not so good ones. Then there are those that are simply bat %*^& crazy.

I recommend Vista x64, and soon Windows 7 x64. They work fine.


RE: Yeah.
By Motley on 6/2/2009 4:53:18 PM , Rating: 1
Initially, I would say a terrible out of box experience. My nvidia based card defaulted to using the standard svga driver that performed absolutely horrid (1.0 on the windows experience benchmark!). It was a pretty standard card, the 8800GTX from evga. The audio drivers that installed themselves didn't work, again, pretty standard audio device -- the onboard audio on the Asus motherboard I have. Nvidia's drivers weren't "officially" available for something like 45 days after Vista was released, and the audio drivers still suck.

So on day 1, I had video that performed like I had a 10 year old onboard video card when I actually had the best video card available at the time. The audio wouldn't work, plugging in headphones would require me to reboot to switch. It was bad. 45 days after release most of the driver problems were sorted out (except audio), and about 90 days after release all my hardware had acceptable vista support (again, except audio).

So yeah, I kinda get the whole Vista DID suck attitude, and unfortunately 45-days of suck killed it. The mass has decided it sucks and even though it doesn't anymore, that doesn't matter. It's going to remain "teh suk" no matter what. Releasing Windows 7 was the best thing Microsoft could do at this point. Most people will be more willing to give it a fresh look.

At least that was my experience, and that's my opinion. However, I use vista everyday, and I like it NOW, but I definately did not when it came out. But again, it was all driver issues.


RE: Yeah.
By omnicronx on 6/2/2009 5:09:21 PM , Rating: 3
Any Ac97 based card worked out of the box in Vista on pretty much any setup imaginable, so let me guess, you were using a Soundblaster and an Nvidia card. In both scenerios the blame can be put squarely on the manufacturer and poor driver support, not Microsoft.

You are right though even that first month was too much. You would not believe how many people I know with the exact same setups that blamed MS and Vista for their problems and ditched the OS within a week.

I too had an Nvidia card at the Vista launch, and lets just say they will not be seeing any cash from my pocket anytime soon. Anyone who says that MS didnt give them enough time was not following the Betas. ATI had stable drivers a good 6 months before Vista's release.


RE: Yeah.
By Alexstarfire on 6/2/2009 5:23:18 PM , Rating: 3
The thing is that even if it is/was technically the manufacturer's fault everyone was going to blame Microsoft since it was THEIR OS. The fact that it all worked on XP didn't help them out either.


RE: Yeah.
By sxr7171 on 6/2/2009 10:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
True first impressions tend to stick. Now I have people asking me if it's okay to try Win 7 on their 3 year old laptop. No matter how many times I explain that the OS is designed to run perfectly on tiny underpowered netbooks these guys are afraid to put Win 7 on an older machine.

That perception is very hard to get rid of.


RE: Yeah.
By Totemic on 6/3/2009 12:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
Becareful with that kind of recommendation.
A lot of laptops have custom drivers for things like their touch pad, Wifi, video and in some cases thumb print readers, which may not be supported out of the box under Win7. Remember, when you buy a laptop from some retailer, the installation of the OS is customized, usually with a lot of their drivers.

So yes, while Win7 may run find on that laptop, it may not have all the necessary drivers so all the things simply may not work correctly.

For example, I have a Toshiba Tecra M2, a very old laptop. I installed Windows 7 RC on it. Works great except for one detail: No built in support for the video so I'm using the generic driver which only gives me 64K color depth at the native LCD display resolution. I can deal with it, but it's still a bit annoying. Maybe with RTM build the driver will be built in. I hope so, since I REALLY doubt Toshiba/nVidia is going to bother providing me with an updated driver for a laptop that they aren't going to make any money off.


RE: Yeah.
By sxr7171 on 6/2/2009 9:57:03 PM , Rating: 1
No it had to do with just how unbelievably resource intensive it was at launch. I tried it on my machine and reverted to XP within a week. Everything was slower. Drivers were hard to find and there was a whole fiasco about minimum system requirements and all that.

When it launched it was clear that it was a gift to hardware makers so people had to buy new machines. What about the whole multimedia class scheduler issue? Also among techies, many were not happy with new DRM being shoved down our throats.

Anyway, I eventually adopted Vista after the first SP. It was better than the launch version. I did start to like the improved file explorer and little things that were better eventually.

Let's not kid ourselves and believe that Mac ads do anything for anyone who are not already Mac fans.


RE: Yeah.
By Belard on 6/3/2009 5:49:41 AM , Rating: 1
I'd say you are very much dead wrong.

While some people are gulibale to ADs... the biggest impact about the negative problems with Vista are BY PEOPLE WHO USE/D VISTA!

I've used Vista. It offers nothing. Some of those "features" can be added to XP for free and with less resouces and of course everything is compatible with XP, except for Halo2 and like anyone gives a rats ass about Halo2? (way to go MS)

Out of the box, a friend bought a brand new Vista computer... sure, now its obvious that years ago intel/MS had NO business promoting such configurations when Vista was new... but geez, vista was already about 5-6 months old. The damn thing crashed alot (no added hardware or 3rd party progs), take forever to boot up, forever to shut-down... if IT would actually shutdown. Some of its own software would crash including its card-games. The friend called me at least once a week about the POS screwing up, etc. Even doubled the RAM... still sucked.

Bought WinXP OEM Home. Had to get HP support online to track down the hidden XP drivers for the desktop (The tech guy was like "You must use vista since the PC is made for it - we are not responsable, etc etc..." - give me the damn drivers. Got those... vista said it would spend 22mins (TWENTY-TWO MINUTES)- to unpack the 40mb audio driver ZIP file!!... and this was after spending 2-3minutes to figure out how to tell me this! At that point, I copied the drivers sloooowly to the USB flash drive and hard-shut down the vista box, murdered Vista, installed XP, copied the XP drivers - unpacked the SAME 40mb ZIP file in about 20seconds. Took about 1hr to finish the deed and install the required programs.

Never a call from the friend about the computer... 2 years aog. Sure it was a lowly 3.0Ghz Dual core celeron... for for reading email and doing a little web browsing... it should have been enough.

I only know of 2-3 people who use Vista... 1 loves it, the others are okay... it works. Everyone else, XP.

No... Apple didn't need to give vista a bad name. Microsoft did that ALL on themselves.

(now awaiting Ballmer to vote me down)


RE: Yeah.
By cubdukat on 6/5/2009 12:11:52 AM , Rating: 2
Quite frankly, it was the reports of gaming performance that did it for me. Any OS claiming to be a next-gen OS should not be 10-15% slower at games than the one it replaces.

I've been using Windows 7 RC1 on my laptop for a week and briefly on my home system, and I have to admit that I really do like it--the first Microsoft OS that I can actually say that about. But at least from my POV, Win7 is going to be the first Vista Service Pack that Microsoft charges us money for. That being said, if I could get my Vista install to stop turning itself back into the C: drive and causing Win7 to go bonkers, I'd be using it much more now. I'm going to try and get a separate HD to install Win7 on and just switch boot drives in BIOS.


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki