Without actually trying out Vista
January 21, 2007APCMag has published ‘Ten Reasons Not to Get Vista‘, but it seems as if the author has never truly tried out Vista himself. I have been using it for months (years, even) and I thoroughly disagree with many of the ten reasons.
Vista doesn’t do anything you can’t already do with XP.
Can I change the volume on a per-application basis in Windows XP? Do I have integrated system-wide search in Windows XP? Can I set the language on a per-user basis in Windows XP? Does Windows XP have per-file emails and contacts? Does Windows XP have a photo organiser application (the fact that it sucks compared to iPhoto and especially Picasa2 is irrelevant)? Does Windows XP have an up-to-date, modern look? Does Windows XP have all those under-the-hood improvements like address space layout randomisation, a new networking stack, and so on?
I could go on for hours.
You already have XP, and alternatives like Linux are free.
Good point. However, 95% of the world will get Vista not by retail, but via OEM. And when it comes via OEM, people don’t experience it as “paying for” (even though they obviously do).
It’s outrageously overpriced
Yes, no doubt about it. However, as said above, most people will get Vista via OEM.
XP was demanding at release, but Vista more so.
Vista most certainly is demanding. However, on my hardware (two computers), Vista with Aero performs better than i.e. Ubuntu or OpenSUSE with Beryl. On top of that, Aero is a hell of a lot more stable than Beryl. The only operating system which (so far) has done very well on older hardware is Mac OS X. Too bad that you actually need to buy a new computer anyway if you want to upgrade from Windows XP to Mac OS X.
This is a typical ‘your mileage may vary’. Vista is demanding on resources, no doubt, but not as bad as some make it out to be.
Key hardware like video and sound is crippled at the moment.
Yes. This is usually the case when an operating system has seen massive internal restructuring, like new frameworks for graphics and audio.
There’s been plenty of coverage about applications that won’t work without a vendor update.
Yet, other than Nero, I have not yet encountered a single application that refused to work on Windows Vista. Obviously there are some that will break, but again, when you massively restructure your platform, this is to be expected.
If you use Windows for mission critical environments (dot dot dot), you should wait until SP1 or maybe even SP2 anyway. That’s called common sense.
It’s a big fat target - with a new and untested in the global wild architecture
This one is kind of weird, as the author claims Vista has nothing to offer over XP - yet he does recognise it has a ‘new and untested’ architecture. Contradictio?
The point he makes is valid, though. But as with the above, mission critical environments should wait anyway.
UAC - Oh yes, the Microsoft solution for an operating system where mutli-user was an afterthought.
Multiuser an afterthought in Windows NT? Does the author even have the slightest understanding of what NT is and where it came from? NT has been designed from the ground up with multiuser in mind, and I do not think Dave Cuttler would like it that NT’s multiuser was called an ‘afterthought’. Statements like this seriously hurt the author’s credibility. On the 9x series- yes, multiuser was an afterthought there- but on NT?
As for UAC, it’s not even half as annoying as some make it out to be. I do not find it any more annoying than sudo, and it is more advanced than Mac OS X’ version. Security comes at a price.
DRM
I have never come into contact with DRM (in a way that it hindered me, in any case), because I use a - how old-fashioned - CD player and a record player to play my music (I actually buy albums in a real store, and I have a huge collection of vinyl albums as well) and I play my DVDs on my stand-alone DVD player.
The problem is definitely there, though, and in all honesty I have too little experience with it to talk about it.
The draconian license
In this section, the author spreads some misinformation (like the license transfer he mentions, which has been changed by Microsoft months ago), so it is pretty difficult to correctly rebut it. Microsoft has some darn restrictive licenses, and I do not think Vista is an exception.
The author has failed to mention the real weaknesses of Windows Vista, such as the idiotic amount of different editions or the simple fact that Microsoft’s obsession with backwards compatibility is hindering its development.
Instead, the author decided to just rehash the average anti-MS zealot’s points, without actually trying out Vista himself.
is there a alternative to vista ?>
if i have to use windows on a box, is there a choice ?
i see the problem in the microsoft life cycle: will i get security updates for win 2k in next autumn ?
how long i get security updates for windows xp ?
Comment by user — January 21, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
You will security updates for XP longer than any Linux, that’s for sure. Win98 ended its cycle 8 years later for example. Linux distos usually end their cycle within 1-2 years. OSX seems to support their previous OS version for at least 3 years too. I think only Solaris and IBM maintain their OSes for up to 25-50 years.
Comment by Eugenia — January 21, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
First, a new networking stack is not a feature, unless you are a hacker….
Second, not sure how you configured your Linux system, but I have systems running beryl that can not run XP, so maybe you are not the best person to be talking linux. Third, you mention a ton of “Features,” but yes all those exist in XP, just they are add ons, which of course still means that XP can do it.
Comment by George Burdell — January 21, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
I only read the first paragraph of your post and then stopped reading because what you’re saying doesn’t make any sense.
“Does Windows XP have a photo organiser application (the fact that it sucks compared to iPhoto and especially Picasa2 is irrelevant)?”
No, it doesn’t. But the point is that you can organize pictures on XP with Picasa just as well as on Vista with Picasa. What’s irrelevant is the fact that Vista includes a photo organizer you won’t use because “it sucks”.
Do you really think that it would be a good idea for anyone to buy Vista because of the photo organizer? Probably not. And that’s exactly what the original article said.
Comment by Helge — January 21, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
I dont think this rebuttal is worth posting. I’ve read the original article and I have to say, he makes alot of very good points.
I agree with what your sayign though with the purchase of the OS. Too bad we’re going to get bombarded with ‘buy vista’ TV commercials. If we werent about to get a mouth full of that crap, then your OEM point would be valid, but seeign that we’re not, then we have to assume that in the first month or 2 of the OS’s release, 80% of copies will be purchased and 20% through OEM.
In the long run, when the OS has been around for 9 years, I’m sure the 95% OEM rate will be correct.
Besides that I think this blog entry stinks of ‘purchased by microsoft’. Like this line:
> > Key hardware like video and sound is crippled at the moment.
> Yes. This is usually the case when an operating system has seen
> massive internal restructuring, like new frameworks for graphics
> and audio.
With the amount of problems M$ had making this bloatware stable I’m astounded that vendors with decades worth of experience in writing drivers have had troubles writing stable drivers for this vista.
In truth, this rebuttal should have been deleted before it was ever submitted.
Comment by Steve — January 21, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
You have very poor anti arguments in which you actually agree with almost all authors points (with a lot of very poor buts :))) I guess Anti-Vista author was more convicing. And yes, you don’t really know nothing about DRM, and you think with that lame answer you have given some meaninhgfull PRO VISTA anwser? Sorry.. I wouldn’t even mentioned it ….. It is (by me) the biggest anti Vista issue… Well i guess i should bury the hatchet by saying that OS is definitly more a choice and view on life and freedoms or something very subjective to one …. So i guess it is like a taste… and one donest discuss tastes!!…
Comment by dmc — January 21, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
You make some good points.
The fact that ‘Ten Reasons Not to Get Vista‘ still mentions the transfer restriction in the license shows that they obviously haven’t been paying attention.
Vista has some good things about it, it might even make it easier for me when I will need to deal with Windows, at work and doing tech support for friends and family.
Although I’m not going to be using it myself due to it’s anti-social license and I will be recommending to my friends and family that they also don’t use it, but for freedom reasons not technical reasons.
Comment by Jessta — January 21, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
Can I change the volume on a per-application basis in Windows XP?
- IndieVolume, add $24.95 to cost of existing XP system
Do I have integrated system-wide search in Windows XP?
-Google Desktop, free
Can I set the language on a per-user basis in Windows XP?
- Microsoft Multilingual User Interface Pack (MUI), free
Does Windows XP have per-file emails and contacts?
- You’re the first person I’ve heard refer to this as a feature and not a problem to be fixed. But, you are correct, not supported by the default email client Outlook Express. +1 vista
— I’ll stick with Gmail
Does Windows XP have a photo organiser application (the fact that it sucks compared to iPhoto and especially Picasa2 is irrelevant)?
-Picasa2, Flickr, etc., free
Does Windows XP have an up-to-date, modern look?
-If I am forced to use Vista this will be the first thing I turn off, just like I did with XP when I set it back to classic mode. However, themes, skins, sidebars, etc. are available for free. Vista Transformation Pack, Yahoo Widgets, free.
Does Windows XP have all those under-the-hood improvements like address space layout randomisation, a new networking stack, and so on?
-Name one application or user that needs, uses, or has announced plans to use this feature? -1 Vista
Total cost to get all of these features without upgrading to Vista - $24.95
Comment by txgeek — January 21, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
You’ve been nuts.
Comment by nuts — January 21, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
let’s see if the new networking stack is a “under the hood improvement”… it has already had security problems where the old stack was fixed years ago.
Also OEM licensing in the end costs more about the same of retail, unless you keep a computer for a long time.
The fact is: no one will need vista anytime soon and it’s not worth 150$ more than linux…
Comment by Andrea — January 21, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
Here are some features that XP doesn’t/won’t have over Vista which are definite improvements:
- Readyboost
- Superfetch
- Better overall memory management
- Aero: This is more than just about eye candy. It frees up your CPU to do what it is supposed to and and really does improve the overall performance of your PC.
- DX10
- Built in search in the Start menu: I find it quite difficult to go back to XP and use the old Start menu now.
- Better file management including the ability to create custom stacks of files within a folder/search folder.
- Better network management
- much better diagnostic tools/power management tools
Additionally, there’s the fact that Tablet PC and Media Centre functionality has now been built into the most popular versions of Windows making them available to a larger number of people. XP just can’t compete with these improvements. Besides, there are some basic features such as search, photo/media management that I would prefer to have built in to the OS without having to rely on third-party software which requires seperate maintenance. If the OS can do these things for you, why bother with third-party solutions.
This is just a short list but I’m sure that a much longer list could be compiled.
Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that there’s any great need for anyone to rush out and upgrade from XP to Vista next month - XP is stable and does everything that most people need on a day to day basis so you may as well leave the Vista upgrade for your next PC upgrade. However, that wasn’t the point that the guy in APCMag was trying to make. He was suggesting that you would be better off switching to Linux but that is plain wrong. Switching to Linux will rpesent most users with as many if not more problems than if they were to switch to Vista right now. You’ll still have driver and compatibilty problems (in fact most of your software won’t work at all so you’ll have to find and learn alternatives) and you’ll also have a massive learning curve to contend with which is something that you won’t have with Vista due to its similarity to XP.
Basically, the APCMag article was just an uninformed rant from a zealot and any publishing company (even Packer’s) should be ashamed to have printed it in the first place.
Comment by jm — January 21, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
1. Every Vista-over-XP new feature (except for 3D-accelerated desktop) is available for free with 3d-party software. Do I as user care, what was the origin of the software installed on my PC. And if I do, what is more preferable: to have software I’m already used to (which is more feature rich, by the way) or to have Microsoft’s all new tools?
2. Every copy of Vista is paid. When You buy a new PC with Vista preinstalled, You can’t do anything about it. But if You have already got Vista-capable PC, You’ll have to pay for Vista retail license with XP license already purchased, which is at least stupid if You have all the sam feature set with You customized XP.
3. UAC as annoying as sudo? Ugh… I hardly remember entering sudo after the initial system configuration ‘cause I have all the needed aliases in my “~/.bashrc” and NOPASSWD option in /etc/sudoers. Still I’ve never faced security problems under Linux (while having some under windows).
Or may be there’s some magic Vista way to have no UAC dialog boxes and no security issues at the same time?
4. Not dealing with DRM ‘cause playing CDs and DVDs on standalone devices? You can browse the NET and play games on Your PlayStation and write documents on Your old good typewriter, so Your Vista box won’t annoy You while being always off.
5. License issues are always some way obscured. The copyright holder may demand that all the users must work on their computers only standing on toes, and that will be legal. But at the same time I feel being abused when asked not to run Vista in Virtualization software (which is the condition for every Home-some versions; do I really need to buy an enterprise product to run it in QEMU at home?).
Comment by ddc — January 21, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
Vista doesn’t do anything you can’t already do with XP.
Can I change the volume on a per-application basis in Windows XP?
Who cares?
Do I have integrated system-wide search in Windows XP?
Depends on what you call “integrated”? Google Desktop and a dozen commercial and OSS products do the same.
Can I set the language on a per-user basis in Windows XP?
Wow, really important for UN computers, I suppose. Anybody else need this?
Does Windows XP have per-file emails and contacts?
I don’t even know what the hell that means. How about SIMPLIFYING email and contacts rather than tying it even deeper into the OS? Outlook is a freakin’ joke compared to the point products.
Does Windows XP have a photo organiser application (the fact that it sucks compared to iPhoto and especially Picasa2 is irrelevant)?
No, it’s not irrelevant. Dozens of photo organizers exist, some for free.
Does Windows XP have an up-to-date, modern look?
Again, who cares? What the hell is an “up-to-date, modern look” anyway? Are you a “fashionista”? Check the looks on some of the Linux distros with decent artists contributing some time.
Does Windows XP have all those under-the-hood improvements like address space layout randomisation, a new networking stack, and so on?
Address space randomization is nice for security, but is causing problems for some software, I’ve heard. In any event, it’s no substitute for properly written code which doesn’t allow buffer overflows.
The “new networking stack” WILL be full of bugs that cause more endless problems in networking Windows PCs than even XP did. Networking on Windows is a NIGHTMARE of stuff that doesn’t work until you check at least 25 different settings, NONE of which are obviously involved with networking. Compare that to ANY Linux distro where a couple text config files set up properly gets your networking going RELIABLY - no suddent failures due to a Registry screwup by some Microsoft or third-oarty program.
Ever removed McAfee or Norton from a PC and had your networking stop working? MANY people have. Can’t happen on Linux.
I could go on for hours.
Don’t. Please. Because so could I.
You already have XP, and alternatives like Linux are free.
Good point. However, 95% of the world will get Vista not by retail, but via OEM. And when it comes via OEM, people don’t experience it as “paying for” (even though they obviously do).
You bet they pay for it - with the crap the OEMs ladle onto the desktop, the lack of a full installation CD, and many other ways that come back to bite the consumer later - which is why they hire me to fix their machines. Except I can’t unless they have a full reinstall CD in many case.
In any case, if they have an XP that works, the statement stands - Vista is NOT free.
It’s outrageously overpriced
Yes, no doubt about it. However, as said above, most people will get Vista via OEM.
Same response. Vista is NOT free unless you BUY A NEW MACHINE. We’re talking about people who HAVE a machine WITH XP on it.
XP was demanding at release, but Vista more so.
Vista most certainly is demanding. However, on my hardware (two computers), Vista with Aero performs better than i.e. Ubuntu or OpenSUSE with Beryl. On top of that, Aero is a hell of a lot more stable than Beryl. The only operating system which (so far) has done very well on older hardware is Mac OS X. Too bad that you actually need to buy a new computer anyway if you want to upgrade from Windows XP to Mac OS X.
And for most people who haven’t bought a machine with 1-2GB of RAM, they will have to buy a new machine or upgrade their current one to run Aero with any performance and the eye candy.
Most corporate machines will NOT run Aero’s full capabilities - nor do they need to - which is one less reason for corporate desktops to bother with Vista over XP. Many corporate desktops get along with Windows 2000 - XP offered very little over 2000 that corporations needed. The same holds true for Vista - in spades.
This is a typical ‘your mileage may vary’. Vista is demanding on resources, no doubt, but not as bad as some make it out to be.
Compared to whom? MOST reviewers I’ve read have said that 2GB of RAM is really needed to run multiple applications on top of the 400MB Vista needs WHEN IDLE.
Key hardware like video and sound is crippled at the moment.
Yes. This is usually the case when an operating system has seen massive internal restructuring, like new frameworks for graphics and audio.
The point is that Vista was LATE out the door because of SERIOUS development problems. It was not provided with adequate Release Candidate testing time, which is why the hardware and software manufacturers are racing furiously to complete their upgrades.
All this will translate to MAJOR bugs and problems for the first year for Vista.
There’s been plenty of coverage about applications that won’t work without a vendor update.
Yet, other than Nero, I have not yet encountered a single application that refused to work on Windows Vista. Obviously there are some that will break, but again, when you massively restructure your platform, this is to be expected.
So we’re supposed to rely on your experience only? I suggest you read the various lists of stuff that does NOT work on Vista now. Sure, it will all work later - but how many bugs will creep in because the developers were rushed because Vista itself was late.
If you use Windows for mission critical environments (dot dot dot), you should wait until SP1 or maybe even SP2 anyway. That’s called common sense.
This part you got right - and that’s exactly what most corporations plan to do, according to surveys I’ve seen in the trade press.
It’s a big fat target - with a new and untested in the global wild architecture
This one is kind of weird, as the author claims Vista has nothing to offer over XP - yet he does recognise it has a ‘new and untested’ architecture. Contradictio?
No contradiction. A “new and untested architecture” merely means Microsoft changed everything again - not that it offers any significantly new features. Since MS couldn’t get the file system database to work, and some other things, the stuff that HAS ben added is hardly earth-shaking enough to warrant such a massive redesign.
I’m also not convinced that it WAS such a “redesign”. Given the ridiculous size of the OS over XP, I’m fairly sure that much of the XP code was dragged along to provide “backward compatibility.” And given the lack of earth-shaking new features, WHERE did the new 20 million or so lines of code actually GO?
I’ll tell you - features that nobody asked for. Which means bugs and security holes nobody wants.
The point he makes is valid, though. But as with the above, mission critical environments should wait anyway.
Consumers should wait as well - do YOU have the resources to debug Vista’s problems compared to a corporate IT department?
UAC - Oh yes, the Microsoft solution for an operating system where mutli-user was an afterthought.
Multiuser an afterthought in Windows NT? Does the author even have the slightest understanding of what NT is and where it came from? NT has been designed from the ground up with multiuser in mind, and I do not think Dave Cuttler would like it that NT’s multiuser was called an ‘afterthought’. Statements like this seriously hurt the author’s credibility. On the 9x series- yes, multiuser was an afterthought there- but on NT?
Bullcrap. Linux is an example of a TRUE multiuser system that was multiuser almost from the first kernel Linus wrote. Linux accepts any number of connections from the same or more than one user. Windows XP can’t accept more than two. Windows XP has some crap called “fast user switching” and allows for multiple user accounts. This is as close to “multiuser” as it gets.
It’s a joke compared with any Linux. EVERY Linux is the equivalent of Microsoft Server 2003.
As for UAC, it’s not even half as annoying as some make it out to be. I do not find it any more annoying than sudo, and it is more advanced than Mac OS X’ version. Security comes at a price.
If you mean sudo on Ubuntu/Kubuntu, I might agree with you. If you mean sudo on any other Linux system - WRONG. On every other Linux system, you use sudo only when you need to. In most cases, sudo is for the end users, not the admin. The admin uses the su command and does it ONCE to enter administrator mode. UAC pops up all over the place, by all accounts.
You also didn’t answer the author’s pointing out how SLOW it is.
DRM
I have never come into contact with DRM (in a way that it hindered me, in any case), because I use a - how old-fashioned - CD player and a record player to play my music (I actually buy albums in a real store, and I have a huge collection of vinyl albums as well) and I play my DVDs on my stand-alone DVD player.
So in other words, you know nothing about it.
Have you read Peter Gutmann’s analysis of how bad the DRM crap in Vista is going to affect the ENTIRE hardware and software industry?
The problem is definitely there, though, and in all honesty I have too little experience with it to talk about it.
So don’t.
The draconian license
In this section, the author spreads some misinformation (like the license transfer he mentions, which has been changed by Microsoft months ago), so it is pretty difficult to correctly rebut it. Microsoft has some darn restrictive licenses, and I do not think Vista is an exception.
So what? The bottom line was that Microsoft TRIED to limit transfers even more so than XP. Add in the sort of crap the OEMs like Dell pull - attaching the OS to the motherboard, so that swapping out the motherboard means buying a new copy of the OS - and Linux starts to look a hell of a lot better.
The author has failed to mention the real weaknesses of Windows Vista, such as the idiotic amount of different editions or the simple fact that Microsoft’s obsession with backwards compatibility is hindering its development.
No. What is hindering its development is the fact that Microsoft doesn’t know how to develop software. Jim Allchin went to Gates in 2005 and told him Vista would NEVER be completed unless they redesigned how they develop software. So they redesigned their procedures. Then last year we saw blog posts from Microsoft employees about how Vista was delayed because the testing process was broken. They also said that numerous times a Vista build would FAIL NUMEROUS tests - and management would make it “Approved for Component.”
This means Vista is RIDDLED with bugs and security holes that will make it the WORST Microsoft OS ever released - even worse than Windows Mlllenium.
Instead, the author decided to just rehash the average anti-MS zealot’s points, without actually trying out Vista himself.
And you rehash the usual Microsoft shill points, without actually dealing with the real issues.
Thank you for playing, but your rebuttal doesn’t even come close to answering the problems with Vista.
Comment by Richard Steven Hack — January 22, 2007 @ 12:18 am
“Yes. This is usually the case when an operating system has seen massive internal restructuring, like new frameworks for graphics and audio.”
Wow! I love massive internal restructuring, and I’m willing to spend a few months without audio support for it!
Alternatively, you could have conceded the author’s point straight off. It’s a reasonable reason to stay with XP for a while.
Comment by Tomer Chachamu — January 22, 2007 @ 12:30 am
More Microsoft bashing from APCMag.com. What a surprise!! /sarcasm
APCMag is the outfit that delibrately and knowingly spread not only misinformation, but disinformation regarding Office 2007 for Windows, OFfice 2008 for Mac, and Vista 32 and Vista64. For example, regarding Office 2007, the proudly declared, “Microsoft backsdown on new UI - goes back to menus/toolbars!” or something to that effect. Then, their editior, Dan went on to blogs to defend the lies that his site spread. ANd he cried like a little baby that got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
APCMag has less than zero credibility regarding any and all Microsoft stories they shovel out.
Comment by Pepe — January 22, 2007 @ 1:02 am
Funny that seeing a “rebuttal” of Vista criticism really drove it home just how much I don’t need this OS. I suppose I’ll end up needing to buy a copy eventually for software compatibility, but for now I see no reason to upgrade from XP.
I already have integrated desktop search, setting the volume differently for different applications is something I’ve never wanted to do, and I prefer not to have a flashy and distracting user interface.
What new stuff does that leave in Vista? Some under the hood tweaking that isn’t really tried and tested? It certainly isn’t faster than my existing operating system.
It doesn’t seem like much considering all the years that Microsoft have worked on this OS.
Comment by Dave_K — January 22, 2007 @ 1:51 am
I’m running Vista at the moment and everyone who has seen it so far (I dont have any real tech friends, they are all musos or cooks) think its awesome; even the people using MacBooks!
So you spout BS about how ppl wont need to upgrade to Vista and how they can run Linux on their 386 they found at the tip.
People will get Vista, a lot of people think it looks damn cool and that alone will be enough for them to get it.
Personally I’m enjoying Vista a hell of a lot, and will probably blow away my XP partition in a month or so. In general its just a cleaner, nicer, snappier version of Windows for me.
My 2c :)
Comment by Matt — January 22, 2007 @ 2:20 am
In general Windows Vista was not a product of inovation as its been claimed by Mictrosoft…. but a product of despiration.
Comment by Anand Lakshmanan — January 22, 2007 @ 2:24 am
I find it hard to work up any sympathy for the truth, Thom, when you, Adam and Eugenia have fostered a community comprised of FUDmongers and bigots, not just with regards to software, but also race, religion, and nationality.
It doesn’t matter that here you’re right–the diseased moral midgets that are the bulk of your readership (or at least the bulk of your commenters) long ago abandoned any semblence of open-mindedness or objectivity. There’s no room left on OSNews for aught but hate, lies, and deceit. We see it every time you or Eugenia attempt to step in as a voice of reason: you’re drowned out by the tin-foiled lunatics, just as is the case here. Why bother going any further? You can’t help those who won’t open their hearts and minds.
Best of luck to you and Eugenia, but I’m out.
Comment by eMagius — January 22, 2007 @ 2:49 am
Your rebuttal pretty much just sucks, I’m not gonna waste my keystrokes to explain
Comment by Trevor N — January 22, 2007 @ 4:39 am
Wow - this shows you just how easy it is to get under the skin of some people, wonder why they are so defensive . . . Vista must be good, why else all the attacks? I’ve already got 5 copies on the way for my family members (using the Family discount of course - oh BTW, you don’t get that with XP ;)
Comment by apguy — January 22, 2007 @ 5:00 am
Cool.. thanks for the rebuttal. Good reading.
One comment here really irritates me: “APCMag is the outfit that delibrately and knowingly spread not only misinformation, but disinformation regarding Office 2007 for Windows, OFfice 2008 for Mac, and Vista 32 and Vista64. For example, regarding Office 2007, the proudly declared, “Microsoft backsdown on new UI - goes back to menus/toolbars!”
For some reason this guy keeps posting that APC was the site that had the story about the Office 2007 toolbar (Microsoft backing down on the new UI.) Let me say if for about the 20th time — it wasn’t APC. I can’t remember what site it was — perhaps ZDNet or CNet — but not APC.
For the love of God, stop attributing mistakes to us!
And if you’re going to accuse us of inaccuracies, how about mentioning specific inaccuracies in our reporting rather than just naming Microsoft products?
Comment by Dan Warne — January 22, 2007 @ 6:49 am
PS… I’ve published my own rebuttal to Ashton’s original article… 10 reasons you should get Vista!
Comment by Dan Warne — January 22, 2007 @ 6:53 am
P.S. Ashton is the former Editor of Atomic Magazine in Australia, one of the more popular tech magazines. He certainly has tried out Vista extensively. (On the other hand, he is a strong Linux advocate…)
Comment by Dan Warne — January 22, 2007 @ 7:09 am
I can quite understand that you list the things above as reasons to upgrade. But for real, these things are no reason for normal users, bot only for geeks.
Normal users don’t even know about photo organizers, nor do they have any idea why you should have sound volume settings per application.
Plus: switching to a new user interface is really a step that normal users very rarely take.
If I take a peek at how my friends and family use computers, Vista really has only things that no end user needs.
Why?
Normal users do not have any IT education, new looks, new features, new computer? Thats what they fear, cause they will have to invest time into it again.
Applications included? Who cares, when your digital camera includes photo management, when your scanner includes graphic editing software?
And from a technical point of view, even for a geek like me, Vista is not worth all the money, the evolutionary step is way to small. Compared to XP, it’s only a minor upgrade.
Comment by Daniel — January 22, 2007 @ 8:32 am
Sorry, in my opinion the arguments in APCMag were *much* more convicing …
Comment by enrico — January 22, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Quotation :
> >>
It was originally designed by IBM and Microsoft together and called OS/2. Once Microsoft had learned enough they released their own OS/2, called it NT by the way. So the original idea came from this collaboration.
We have to guess who came up with the original MS user account policies.
Comment by Michael Goltzand — January 22, 2007 @ 10:03 am
Ashton has now posted a rebuttal to your rebuttal Thom ;-)
http://apcmag.com/5097/in_response_to_10_reasons_not_to_get_vista
Comment by Dan Warne — January 22, 2007 @ 10:43 am
Thanks Dan, isn’t the internet a fun place? ;)
http://www.osnews.com/story.php/17024/Ten-Reasons-You-Should-Get-Vista
Comment by Administrator — January 22, 2007 @ 10:49 am
Yes indeed :)
The comment threads here and on APC have been excellent and insightful too.
Thanks for reading Thom.
Comment by Ashton Mills — January 22, 2007 @ 11:04 am
You shameless asshats!
Comment by Bill Gates — January 23, 2007 @ 2:37 am
I actually think the system requirements for Vista are being understated. Vista is a huge, bloated pig of an OS. Requiring 512mb just for the OS is insane no matter how you look at it.
Comment by Gooberslot — January 23, 2007 @ 3:32 am
You can do all of what you’ve stated on XP by downloading a few apps here and there. Google Desktop search actually beats the pants off of Windows Desktop search. Picassa doesn’t suck at all, it does everything that I’d like it to do, not to mention it’s free.
Being able to change language mid session is probably the worst selling point I’ve ever heard in the Vista debate thus far. Majority of users will use and stick with one language at work and home. The only instance where changing languages would be handy would be in an internet cafe.
A modern look is a selling point? I’d rather my OS have a top response, low system requirements, and a guarntee to run everything I throw at it, hardware and software wise. I want my games to look good, but honestly who cares what the OS looks like!? I spend all my time reading content on the web, not thinking how sexy my window borders look. If I do want to jazz up my windows, I’ll just download one of the many XP shell editors there are out there that are again, free. There’s thousands of user theme’s out there already made up and ready to be used.
Under the hood improvements are only justified at the end user level. If my games run 10% faster on Vista, then Vista = better. Many users don’t care how they get from A to B when using a computer, as long as getting from A to B is fast. One can buy Vista and deal with a whole heap of messing around in hope of getting stuff working faster, or you can simply upgrade your current system hardware. Memory is dirt cheap, that’s $100 for a gig or two , video cards are just as cheap too. All falling into a fraction of the cost that is Vista and giving the user an instant improvement in speed and performance.
A huge non-selling point of Vista is that I currently have XP customized to the way I like it. I’ve had it for 5 years. Where’s the justification to spend X amound of cash upgrade, just to find myself back at square one! Installing stuff from scratch. Finding out what works and what doesn’t. It’s not fun, and it’s not what majority of computer end users want anymore!
Will 95% of the world be upgrading their PC tomorrow? No. Business’s won’t just be like “oh, Vista is out, we better grab a copy and new hardware to boot”. Business will always find the cheapest solution to do the job, not the newest one on the shelf. Take IBM and it’s 1960’s core software for example, still going strong for all of it’s internal workings.
Just reading the rest of your article as I type this. You … don’t use your PC for any media? Sure, I still by my CD’s at the store too, but at least I rip them even before listening! And you’ve simply chosen not to front up to DRM problem that’s lies within Vista?
Gah, why am I wasting my time here!
Comment by burningfeetman — January 23, 2007 @ 6:42 am
Set volume levels on a per-application basis? Now why would I want to do that? If I’m working at night, I just switch off or turn down my speakers. If my girlfriend isn’t in, I want to crank them up and turn up the subwoofer for pure 5.1-surround-sound goodness, which clearly, I can’t yet do with my current setup. And I can in XP or Linux.
If an application is too noisy, everything I’ve ever used has allowed me an option to stop playing sounds in that application. Simple enough.
Comment by Corin — January 23, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
Being that I survive on my rich fathers considerable wealth and this blog, I fully intend to upgrade to Vista Ultimate as soon as it hit’s the store’s shelf. He limits my expenditures other than anything related to computers, this will show him!
Comment by Richie Rich — January 24, 2007 @ 11:54 am
This one is kind of weird, as the author claims Vista has nothing to offer over XP - yet he does recognise it has a ‘new and untested’ architecture. Contradictio?
no, not really. the other author is obviously saying that the form (the actual codebase) has changed, but the functionality has not. in other words, it does all of the same things in new ways.
here’s an example for you… I can code an application, let’s say an address book that stores its data as XML, with a native Windows widget set using Java under Eclipse. and then I could code an application in C# with .NET that does exactly the same thing, that can even read the files of the other application.
from the standpoint of the user these two applications would do exactly the same thing, but they would go about doing it in completely different ways.
it’s actually sort of amusing that this point is lost on you.
Comment by nick van borst — January 27, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
The only reason to upgrade to Vista is you soon won’t be able to buy a new pc without it, unless you build your own. Please, someone break the contract with microsoft that requires OEM’s to pay micrograft for every computer they make regardless of operating system.
Comment by alan — January 29, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
I’ll come in here ’shooting from the hip’ and simply state that I have yet to experienced Vista or read any technical articles in depth about it.
However I will say this; for better or worse in my opinion technical innovation in ‘whatever form’ is usually something we should experience. So it’s less ‘this and that’, it has ‘this, doesn’t have that’.
Fine so be it, but as far as I remember all of the them started out that way windows 3.11, Mac OS9, Linux 0.95 - just to name a few…forget about amiga os, and commodorer camps :P
Today their far better, superior, faster, etc…Perhaps from all of our ranting and raving, or perhaps from the developers that simply wanted that stuff themselves.
In the end we would end up trying them just for the sake of curiousity, and you will do the same. You will end up using it and eventually forgetting something will go wrong until it happens.
When that happens what what will you do? You will do what you always do, you’ll live with it until it’s fixed. Complain yes, but live with it you will.
There are still tons of things that go wrong with XP but listen to the comparisons now - “Vista doesn’t do anything you can’t already do with XP”, eventually the arguements will be - “Windows X doesn’t do anything you can’t already do with Vista”…
If not then you’ll use some other OS but sooner or later you’ll touch hands with vista.
So stick with the ten reasons if you want, but I can think of one reason for myself of buying it - Because it’s new and i want to try out for myself :)
Comment by Shamunda — January 29, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
My experience with Microsoft is that they start selling an OS when it is at the BARLEY FUNCTIONAL stage. All the PC magazines give it heaps, because it sucks. After 2 or 3 years of OEM sales third party software developers have caught up and microsoft have plugged 80% of the holes from the initial release and the OS become ALMOST USEFULL. 3 or so years later the OS becomes REASONABLE, and Microsoft release a new OS at the BARLEY FUNCTIONAL stage.
I’m glad I got my new PC 6 months ago, i just need to last the next 3 years in upgrades so that Vista can get to be an ok OS.
Comment by groko — February 3, 2007 @ 11:25 am
This argument of reasons for and against Vista is pointless ! Most poeple when buying a new computer expect that they will get the latest copy of windows on thier new computer. If I was buying a new computer today I would not be saying to the sales rep “don’t give me the latest windows I want the old one ! So most people will just go with the flow and Vista will become the next default OS for PCs. This is not to say that a % of users wont spit the dummy with microsoft for one reason or another. I am not far off spitting it myself but I am not your average user.
Comment by Scud — February 3, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Does Windows XP have per-file emails and contacts? Does Windows XP have a photo organiser application (the fact that it sucks compared to iPhoto and especially Picasa2 is irrelevant)? Does Windows XP have an up-to-date, modern look?
All of these things you’re singing the praises of amount to pure, superficial fluff. I would also expect you to know better than to use the term “under the hood,” with any of them.
Good point. However, 95% of the world will get Vista not by retail, but via OEM. And when it comes via OEM, people don’t experience it as “paying for” (even though they obviously do).
Yeah, via such wonderful organisations as Dell, who have long been accomplices in maintaining Microsoft’s monopoly in this manner. Tried buying a PC from them *without* Windows installed recently? Good luck.
Vista most certainly is demanding. However, on my hardware (two computers), Vista with Aero performs better than i.e. Ubuntu or OpenSUSE with Beryl.
This is spurious, for the simple reason that anything running in the background in the case of Linux can be turned off, or at least it can in the case of a sane distribution. Try installing Slackware and then running top, and seeing how much RAM that takes up. After that as the base, you can then install X and Beryl and I can guarantee you that resource consumption (and thus, performance) will be an order of magnitude more efficient than Aero in Vista.
Instead, the author decided to just rehash the average anti-MS zealot’s points, without actually trying out Vista himself.
No; they’re valid points. The “advances” in Vista are either superficial window dressing, (no pun intended) or things Linux in particular (and probably OSX as well) has had since its’ inception. (Such as image-based installs, which can be ludicrously easy with Linux once you have an initial image)
You’re trying to defend something which is genuinely indefensible for the most part, Thom, and it shows in your writing. I’m honestly disappointed. Given the site you run, as I said earlier, I would have expected better.
Vista is, putting it bluntly, dead on arrival; a total non-event. Trying to claim otherwise is wishful thinking, whether on the part of Microsoft or anyone else.
Comment by Petrus — February 5, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
are you paid? so why do you support a company that doesn’t care about you???
Don’t compare, windows flip think to Beryl… just don’t do it! See it with your eyes and keep your mouth shut… during the video, off course!
Comment by Joao Matos — February 17, 2007 @ 12:37 am
Ouch ouch. I read this rebuttal blog and then APCmag’s reaction to this (your) rebuttal).
Dude - your arguments were 95% destroyed using FACTS! There’s almost nothing left of the crap you posted in this blog!
APCmag is right - and yes that probably hurts. But be a man and stop whining.
Comment by Throughly destroyed. — March 4, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
I use my computer mainly for databasing.
I run Win98 with Works ver 3 (for Windows 3.11) and Microsoft Office 97 Professional.
I can see no reason for updating to Win2000, XP or Vista.
If there is anyone out there that can advance a good reason (it’s got to be something I will use) for updating I’d love to hear it.
I’m not interested in looks or having the latest and the greatest.
I want to spend my time in using my computer not learning all the time how to use it.
Comment by Garry De Batt — March 27, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
Your first comment, stating all the things Windows Vista can do that Windows XP (and older versions) can’t do.
I don’t want ANY of that garbage to be bundled with my OS. All these things represent is resources that Microsoft wasted. Instead of focusing their time and talent on important stuff like stability and security, Microsoft had some of their programmers wasting time to provide a bunch of stuff that we can already get elsewhere! Third parties, though can’t give us increased kernel security and stability.
As for the integrated desktop search function. Knowing about that means I will never again buy another version of Windows EVER. Integrated search only means that others (including Microsoft, especially Microsoft) will have an easier time stealing my files and information. No Sir, I do not need and DEFINITELY do not want an integrated desktop search!! Anybody who DOES want it is a too trusting fool!
Comment by Alicia C Simpson — April 13, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
I don’t know how you can find sudo annoying, as it does what an authentication mechanism is supposed to do:
1. Ask user to authenticate by entering his password
2. Launch application with administrative rights.
From what I know, step #1 in Vista is replaced with
1. Ask user to click Yes or No (I know the labels are different!)
What kind of authentication is that? Partial at most. UAC is deeply flawed.
Comment by EpsDel — May 10, 2007 @ 7:06 am
As for number 44: Dude, you have some serious issues… Come on, you’re using ancient and deprecated software. Look, I don’t want to sound arrogant (too late maybe? :) ), but new software exists because of the things that were not done right in previous versions. Try to upgrade, will you? You’re like using an old (and bad) car in our days saying all you want to do is learn how to drive.
Comment by EpsDel — May 10, 2007 @ 7:09 am
Nero worked fine for me with Vista. I could never get it to work well on XP. It would hang with XP and a dual core AMD. I would have to disable one of the cores so it wouldn’t hang. Never had this problem with Vista so Nero worked better for me.
Comment by Brent — May 16, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
some points our microsoft lobbyist forgot to mention:
1. that aero desktop uses %20 of system resources
2. you can ONLY have ONE copy of windows Vista and ONLY for reinstallation, if you transfer that license you may ONLY transfer it once, and you may NOT keep a copy for yourself.
3. a tech lawyer named Wendy has a short translation of some of the EULA, which our microsoft lobbyist forgot to mention at http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2006/10/19/forbidding_vistas_windows_licensing_disserves_the_user.html one example is “You may not work around any technical limitations in this software”, so how exactly do i get that document back? how to i recover that corrupted file? how do i increse the resolution on my movies in the DVD drive? all of this would be “working around” the technical limitations of said software that microsoft no doubt deliberatly put in place
Comment by serge — June 25, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
my last message said that the EULA says you can only have one copy and what not and i read somewhere in the comments that it was changed, buy “why on earth” would microsoft post an out of date EULA? on their own site?
Comment by serge — June 25, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
What about for corporate use? The technical aspects you all are talking about are completely irrelevant, not one is interested and is such a complete waste of everyones time
Comment by Ed — September 11, 2007 @ 7:04 am
this is one of THE WORST rebutals on ANY SUBJECT I’ve ever came across…
your arguments are either wrong, inrelevent, or actually agrees with the original article — I am curious, are you actually an undercover anti-microsoft fan?
If so, kudos to you, as you definitively convinced me to stay with XP (or for as long as I can).
Comment by alertipo — November 15, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
Ok, I see your point. So let me summarise what you’ve just said.
Why we should use Vista:
1. Because it has a photo organiser that suks.
2. Because it has many “new” features that we can get for free on XP (either through 3rd party software or microsoft updates)
3. We are forced to because of OEM.
4. Because it doesn’t requires so much more system resources that we think it will.
5. Because it has gone through “massive internal restructuring”.
6. Because its security systems still got problems.
7. Because its UAC is not that annoying.
In conclusion, only the point 3 on my list is valid. Next time, please put more thinking into it before you post any rebuttal.
Comment by lxh — November 29, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
You must be working for microsoft.
No real IT person would use your arguments.
I use this test to check the “real world” commonsense of IT workers.
The test is, “What do you think of Vista?” YOU FAILED!!!
miserably
Comment by rolf — December 17, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
reasons why you should get a mac!!
1:less viruses.
2:faster. starting my macbook takes less time then my vista too log someone off.
3:The dock beats the toolbar thing anyday.
4:easy to get to the recycle bin.
5:less time to move stuff around.
6:easly launch your fav. programs from the dock.
7:expose is better then flip3D, easier to get to the program you want, and flip3D is just a rubbish copy of it
8:spotlight is faster and better then the windows search, windows search in the start menu is just a copy.
9:no un-wanted programs
10:hasnt broken down once, my vista has crashed 4/5 times since january, and you cant have two people logged on without crashing it.
11:run windows faster then the windows machine.
no problems, unlike my sisters acer laptop, which cant play music, and needs spy-bot and another program to run photoshop.
much less updates becuase you don’t need them
Comment by G Master — April 6, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
The author mentions he hasn’t had any compatibility problems…
Which leads me to ask - have tried installing anything other than the operating system on your Vista install? The true costs of Vista may not be in buying the operating system, but in having to purchase upgrades or alternatives to programs that work beautifully on XP…
So far my AV software (59.95), my graphics management and manipulation software (695.00), my audio mixing software (68.50) and my Vidoe manipulation and compression software (175.00) have all had to be upgraded or replaced because Vista just somehow can’t seem to manage to run it..
Upgrading to Vista has cost me almost a 1000 dollars BEFORE I paid a penny for the OS itself, not to mention that there are a number of other things the I can’t do - like my online games - that I can’t afford to replace yet due to the unreasonable costs of “upgrading”..
I would recommend that you not upgrade to Vista until you are dragged into it kicking and screaming - or until MS fixes the the plethora of problems that are intrinsic to Vista.
While having a slightly more modern design to the desktop is a nice improvement - this OS does nothing that you can’t do as easy or easier with XP and some well chosen (and usually free) addons.
Comment by Greg — September 27, 2008 @ 4:10 pm