Windows Vista-- will it suck?

[The Mad Hatter]

That's a bit absurd...last time I checked the Windows OS is what 90% of the business world is using..

That doesn't mean it's any good. See my previous post.

[Choo Choo]

OK.  I have actually found two things in Vista which are easier than in XP.

1.  Adding a network printer by specifying an IP address.  We have some old Intel print servers, long since "no longer supported", which were a real pain to install on XP.  Basically you had to run an (unsupported) Intel utility up to the point where it would fail - but by then it would have created the extra ports you needed, which you then used in the "Add a printer" wizard.  In Vista you can create a new port on the fly just by quoting the IP address.

2.  It does a better job of find & installing drivers for the extra serial/parallel ports we need for communicating with things like weighscales, barcode readers, etc.  In XP it was very much a hit & miss business, and usually you ended up with at least 1 port non-functional.  Vista doesn't load drivers for these extra ports by default, but if you tell it afterwards to go find them, so far (touch wood) it has.  In many cases these are quite old drivers, but - amazingly - Vista seems less picky about this than XP.

Not a huge list, but at least it's something positive.

What it really needs is a simple switch somewhere that says:  "Turn off all the tricksy shit and just do some work." That would save so much time in set up.

[orbital]

Not a huge list, but at least it's something positive.

For computers -laptops in particular- low in resources, the memory boost function is a good addition too. What it does is, if you have a 1 GB or so USB flash drive, you can use any portion of that as system memory by just plugging it in. It is not as effective as installed RAM but it shoulders some of the workload.

[Choo Choo]

One other tip for anyone who, like me, overwrites a previously-functioning XP installation with Vista, only to discover that now the sound doesn't work.  Vista will tell you that the drivers are functioning normally, but "No output device is installed."  This is bollocks (of course).  Fiddling with the Vista setup is useless.  What you have to do is go to the RealTek site and download a Vista drivers package from there.  It will helpfully disable all the non-functioning Microsoft shit and install its own superior set of software.

[paul]

That's a bit absurd...last time I checked the Windows OS is what 90% of the business world is using..

It's probably closer to 99%, but I don't see how Microsoft's corporate dominance has anything to do with having a superior OS. Maybe if businesses were a bit wiser they would pick an OS that's less buggy, prone to crashing, and lacking the security holes that Windows continually neglects to fix they would run more efficiently. But then again, waste fuels our world.

[Bonehelm]

Hmm I never said Microsoft OS'es are superior in any way. I'm just saying you shouldn't say Vista sucks yet because it's only out for a couple months. Give it time, Microsoft is a company full of computer geniuses, why would you think they can't fix the bugs/holes in their products? They've been the most competitive business in the computer OS software market for no less than a decade, and that is clearly reflected by them being the upper hand in market share.

[paul]

Hmm I never said Microsoft OS'es are superior in any way. I'm just saying you shouldn't say Vista sucks yet because it's only out for a couple months. Give it time, Microsoft is a company full of computer geniuses, why would you think they can't fix the bugs/holes in their products? They've been the most competitive business in the computer OS software market for no less than a decade, and that is clearly reflected by them being the upper hand in market share.

I think that Microsoft can't fix the bugs in their products? Oh really... because that's not what I said. I said that they neglect to. Why would they do this? Well the most obvious reason is that since they have such a monopoly over what OS computers use, they can afford not to fix their product to make room for upgrades in the future. I'm sure another reason is that a lot of these problems are fundamental to the way Windows is programmed and Microsoft doesn't want to create something completely new. I think the fact that Vista was released in this state doesn't leave a lot of room to imagine an improved version of the OS in the near future and reflects badly on Microsoft.

[Bonehelm]

I think that Microsoft can't fix the bugs in their products? Oh really... because that's not what I said. I said that they neglect to. Why would they do this? Well the most obvious reason is that since they have such a monopoly over what OS computers use, they can afford not to fix their product to make room for upgrades in the future. I'm sure another reason is that a lot of these problems are fundamental to the way Windows is programmed and Microsoft doesn't want to create something completely new. I think the fact that Vista was released in this state doesn't leave a lot of room to imagine an improved version of the OS in the near future and reflects badly on Microsoft.

You badly underestimated Microsoft. Other OSes will never be as commercially successful no matter how many "geeks" claim Linux/Macintosh is much better. No matter how much trash people are throwing at the Windows franchise, it'll never become the 2nd best solution in the computing world. It's a fact, and it's been like that for over 10 years. It's the single best operating system available in the market, clearly reflected by the gargantuan sales, universal acclaim, and public approval.

[orbital]

Also, we should not forget that it is the popularity of the Windows system making it vulnerable to more attacks. If Windows was the least popular OS hackers would probably spend less time trying to break into it. So being the most widely used OS is detrimental in a way.

[Bonehelm]

Also, we should not forget that it is the popularity of the Windows system making it vulnerable to more attacks. If Windows was the least popular OS hackers would probably spend less time trying to break into it. So being the most widely used OS is detrimental in a way.

The same would happen to Mac or Linux if they were the most widely used OS. So this is not just Window's problem. And it's very difficult for a company to keep their OS completely invulnerable while still maintaining complete dominance over its competitors.

[The Mad Hatter]

You badly underestimated Microsoft. Other OSes will never be as commercially successful no matter how many "geeks" claim Linux/Macintosh is much better. No matter how much trash people are throwing at the Windows franchise, it'll never become the 2nd best solution in the computing world. It's a fact, and it's been like that for over 10 years. It's the single best operating system available in the market, clearly reflected by the gargantuan sales, universal acclaim, and public approval.

It can't be the best - most of their 'innovations' are reverse engineered from other software. Like the new widgets gadgets in Vista. Or tabs in Internet Explorer (after proudly proclaiming that the public didn't want tabbed browsing).

The fact is that the market buys Microsoft because it simply doesn't realise that there's better software available: Mac is seen as high-end, and Linux (to those who have even heard of it) is seen as specialist.

Though they have been taken to European court recently for breaking monopoly laws. Their defence, rather amusingly, was that they didn't know the law.

[Mark]

In big business, everyone screws everyone else. Microsoft nicked the windows concept from Mackintosh (Apple). Apple nicked the GUI for the iPod from Creative Labs. It's a constant battle to see who can get what to market first and most successfully before getting screwed in the courts. Some people may not like this, but most couldn't give a shit. Mr Average buys his PC, knows it does the stuff he wants it to, and doesn't care two hoots about Microsoft's monopoly. But if he loses an important file, then you'll see him hit the roof.

Microsoft dominates the computing world in the same way Apple dominates downloads. People assume there's no alternative, so they take what's given to them. And if all their friends use the same stuff, that makes them feel secure and 'normal'. Linux? That's for geeks, right?

[paul]

The same would happen to Mac or Linux if they were the most widely used OS. So this is not just Window's problem. And it's very difficult for a company to keep their OS completely invulnerable while still maintaining complete dominance over its competitors.

You know, you would think this is true, but think about it this way. If you were someone who created viruses, wouldn't you love to be the first person to make one for Mac OS X? With rising sales of Apple computers (Macbooks, in particular), and a market share of about 6%, wouldn't someone want to do such a thing? Wouldn't someone get bored of creating viruses for Windows?

But the fact is that there are none. Not 1 or 2, but zero. There is obviously something about the OS that is preventing this, or there would have been at least 1 by now. Until one appears, I'll keep on feeling comfy.

[The Mad Hatter]

You know, you would think this is true, but think about it this way. If you were someone who created viruses, wouldn't you love to be the first person to make one for Mac OS X? With rising sales of Apple computers (Macbooks, in particular), and a market share of about 6%, wouldn't someone want to do such a thing? Wouldn't someone get bored of creating viruses for Windows?

But the fact is that there are none. Not 1 or 2, but zero. There is obviously something about the OS that is preventing this, or there would have been at least 1 by now. Until one appears, I'll keep on feeling comfy.

I don't think that there's any such thing as a completely secure system. That said, Windows practically invites viruses...

[BorisG]

When I was in NZ on vacation recently I used a PC that had Vista. This is on cable whereas I'm only on DSL and their PC was a lot slower than mine on the internet. More importantly, their cable connection appeared to have slowed from when they were on XP. Personally, I'd wait until all the bugs are out. I don't see anything radically new with Vista and my main issue is speed and functionality - XP wins in both cases AFAIC

I have not tried Vista yet, so I do not doubt what you say, but I am curious about what broadband speed that 'puter was using. Some cable companies offer three or four broadband speeds. The slowest is not very good.

Also, many have their 'puters gummed up.

[Bonehelm]

I don't think that there's any such thing as a completely secure system. That said, Windows practically invites viruses...

Same here. I highly doubt Mac can't even be attacked by at least 1 virus.