Vista compared to Millineum Edition...
- Thread starter ETSA
- Start date
tlarkin
VIP Member
The problems with Vista are multi threaded and the blame lies on all sides. For one Microsoft is so huge, that they can't execute proper project management and some project leads and employees will never interact with other teams on the same project. Other times, they won't even speak at all. An example would be those who code Office versus those who code the actual OS. So, there are going to be problems there with just their products working together in house out of the box. However, MS is good at patching those problems.
I think what the real beef is and why it is comparable to ME is that it is the end of a kernel, as Windows ME was the last of the 9x kernel OSes that MS put out. Now with 2000/XP/Vista we are seeing the NT kernel, which of course is very old in the same sense, since NT work station has been out since the mid to late 90s.
You can only patch pot holes so much before you need to dig it up and lay down brand new pavement. The slow migration of such newer ideas and technology while keeping the backward compatibility has caused both bloats and stability issues.
The problem with developers is that MS is now finally trying to make their OS smarter by design. Before in previous versions of Windows developers were allowed direct access to the kernel via kernel hooks. Anti virus developer relied heavily on these types of hooks used to access the windows kernels, as well as drivers and everything else. This is because in Windows everyone ran as a 'root user' and no authentication was ever required to install or run anything. Well, that is also a huge security hole, and of course was exploited by every hacker and virus writer out there, and that is why Windows has more zero day exploits than almost any OS out there.
Then you have the developers that have become accustomed to being lazy or sloppy. The Vista dev kit was out at least a full year if not more before Vista was released, and most of the Vista crashes and incompatibilities are related to drivers and anti virus software (and similar things). Symantec actually complained heavily to MS about not getting the direct kernel access and they would have to recode all their applications. So, what happens when a software company who is just as big (if not bigger) than you telling you shouldn't do something because you will piss off all your customers when our enterprise solutions no longer work, which brings me to my next point.
Vista has been a HUGE failure in the enterprise market and no one is upgrading to Vista in the business world at all. There is no benefit, in fact it costs more to upgrade your site license and replace all the hardware it would take to run vista. Since Vista feature limits things important to enterprise deployments like, the ability to connect to a domain level network unless you buy the Ultimate or the Business edition means it drives up cost as well. So, why would you be inclined to spend all that money to upgrade to know that you will face issues and some things won't work or be supported and never once gain anything out of it?
The funny thing is I said this over 2 years ago when Vista first came out that it was going to be another or at least compared to Windows ME. Windows ME was a buggy updated version of Win98se with a prettier interface, just like Vista is to XP.
Vista also promised so much in the beginning and then feature dropped tons of things that are actually really cool technologies and it was, at least for me, a huge disappointment. I was really looking forward to see how EFI hardware changed the face of building your own PC, but we won't see that till Windows 7, and even then it is not guaranteed, because it is heavily rumored it is getting pushed back again.
You can't please everyone and MS should just go back to a straight Unix-like POSIX system requiring authentication to access the kernel through the shell and keeping all other kernel access from the GUI restricted, unless logged in as root user. Then force developers to actually, you know, develop things at a decent level of standards. Like, why in the hell would a driver need to access the kernel as root?
While, I am not a developer and programming is something that is foreign to me, I do understand the workings of an OS. I would say that it is going to take effort on both MS and the third party developer's side to make it work.
I think what the real beef is and why it is comparable to ME is that it is the end of a kernel, as Windows ME was the last of the 9x kernel OSes that MS put out. Now with 2000/XP/Vista we are seeing the NT kernel, which of course is very old in the same sense, since NT work station has been out since the mid to late 90s.
You can only patch pot holes so much before you need to dig it up and lay down brand new pavement. The slow migration of such newer ideas and technology while keeping the backward compatibility has caused both bloats and stability issues.
The problem with developers is that MS is now finally trying to make their OS smarter by design. Before in previous versions of Windows developers were allowed direct access to the kernel via kernel hooks. Anti virus developer relied heavily on these types of hooks used to access the windows kernels, as well as drivers and everything else. This is because in Windows everyone ran as a 'root user' and no authentication was ever required to install or run anything. Well, that is also a huge security hole, and of course was exploited by every hacker and virus writer out there, and that is why Windows has more zero day exploits than almost any OS out there.
Then you have the developers that have become accustomed to being lazy or sloppy. The Vista dev kit was out at least a full year if not more before Vista was released, and most of the Vista crashes and incompatibilities are related to drivers and anti virus software (and similar things). Symantec actually complained heavily to MS about not getting the direct kernel access and they would have to recode all their applications. So, what happens when a software company who is just as big (if not bigger) than you telling you shouldn't do something because you will piss off all your customers when our enterprise solutions no longer work, which brings me to my next point.
Vista has been a HUGE failure in the enterprise market and no one is upgrading to Vista in the business world at all. There is no benefit, in fact it costs more to upgrade your site license and replace all the hardware it would take to run vista. Since Vista feature limits things important to enterprise deployments like, the ability to connect to a domain level network unless you buy the Ultimate or the Business edition means it drives up cost as well. So, why would you be inclined to spend all that money to upgrade to know that you will face issues and some things won't work or be supported and never once gain anything out of it?
The funny thing is I said this over 2 years ago when Vista first came out that it was going to be another or at least compared to Windows ME. Windows ME was a buggy updated version of Win98se with a prettier interface, just like Vista is to XP.
Vista also promised so much in the beginning and then feature dropped tons of things that are actually really cool technologies and it was, at least for me, a huge disappointment. I was really looking forward to see how EFI hardware changed the face of building your own PC, but we won't see that till Windows 7, and even then it is not guaranteed, because it is heavily rumored it is getting pushed back again.
You can't please everyone and MS should just go back to a straight Unix-like POSIX system requiring authentication to access the kernel through the shell and keeping all other kernel access from the GUI restricted, unless logged in as root user. Then force developers to actually, you know, develop things at a decent level of standards. Like, why in the hell would a driver need to access the kernel as root?
While, I am not a developer and programming is something that is foreign to me, I do understand the workings of an OS. I would say that it is going to take effort on both MS and the third party developer's side to make it work.
I'm just going to pull a couple parts of tlarkin's post out.
I hate Symantec's and McAfee's products). I believe Kaspersky was the only security company that seemed willing to redesign their software to work with the new (better) rules.
I think most of the other problems with Vista were driver related and now that the OS is a bit more mature I believe they are mostly worked out. It's mainly perception that is killing it now which is why you are probably seeing the rush on Windows 7 now.
My sister has a laptop with Vista on it and it runs great. I think that if you were to go out and buy Vista now, save for some old software that is incompatabile with the new driver models and what not, you would have very few, if any, problems (your system needs to meet the minimum requirements of course).
I don't use Vista myself but that's because I tend to upgrade because I need to not because I can.
I think this was the biggest failure. Direct Kernel access as going to be gone for anything that wasn't a core windows component and then Symantec, McAfee and I think someone else, whined and complained about how it would make their products uncompetitive (as if they aren't already trash
I hate Symantec's and McAfee's products). I believe Kaspersky was the only security company that seemed willing to redesign their software to work with the new (better) rules.I think most of the other problems with Vista were driver related and now that the OS is a bit more mature I believe they are mostly worked out. It's mainly perception that is killing it now which is why you are probably seeing the rush on Windows 7 now.
My sister has a laptop with Vista on it and it runs great. I think that if you were to go out and buy Vista now, save for some old software that is incompatabile with the new driver models and what not, you would have very few, if any, problems (your system needs to meet the minimum requirements of course).
I don't use Vista myself but that's because I tend to upgrade because I need to not because I can.
/_\MECCA/_\
New Member
My opinion might not really matter on Vista since I upgraded from Win98Se right to Vista....but I have to admit that Vista really helps me out with alot..gaming-wise & work production wise. I have a laptop with 1.8 Ghz with 1.5GBs RAM and so far it seems like Vista is running like a charm.
I think the problem is that people never had their computers ready for Vista. They probably expected the same exactly amount of RAM & CPU to run Vista as they did with they're previous OS(most likely XP). The GUI interface is rather new to them and they may not understand where everything is.
These are the same people that are too lazy & probably don't have enough time to look around their OWN computer to find what does what. Some people don't even know how to customize they're own computer other than the desktop wallpaper. If they don't know computers that well..then that's their own fault. All a user has to do is look in the Control Panel IN DEPTH for about an hour & I bet they'll feel more comfortable then they were an hour ago.
A OS is as good as the programmer that made it...but don't expect the OS to do things without THE USER'S Knowledge of where everything is on the OS.....or you'll just be shooting yourself in the foot.
I think the problem is that people never had their computers ready for Vista. They probably expected the same exactly amount of RAM & CPU to run Vista as they did with they're previous OS(most likely XP). The GUI interface is rather new to them and they may not understand where everything is.
These are the same people that are too lazy & probably don't have enough time to look around their OWN computer to find what does what. Some people don't even know how to customize they're own computer other than the desktop wallpaper. If they don't know computers that well..then that's their own fault. All a user has to do is look in the Control Panel IN DEPTH for about an hour & I bet they'll feel more comfortable then they were an hour ago.
A OS is as good as the programmer that made it...but don't expect the OS to do things without THE USER'S Knowledge of where everything is on the OS.....or you'll just be shooting yourself in the foot.