Vista Beta 2 has Major Problems

WebHostingGuy writes "In a review by Gary Krackow from MSNBC who reviewed Vista Beta 2 over the last week he had very disappointing problems. "for me [it] was one of the worst operating system experiences that I've ever encountered." Built-in audio and wireless didn't work on his Levono laptop. It took four days to get the first installation."

Article Summary

"I tried to install on a laptop, and it didn't work."

Am I the only one who's sitting here and wondering, "What was this guy thinking?!" Laptops have so much custom hardware these days that it's a Bad Idea(TM) to attempt an OS installation from anything but restore CDs. This guy not only tried to install from new media, but he tried to install a cutting-edge operating system that isn't even out of beta!

Desktops are cheap these days. Would it kill him to keep one or two around for "kicking the tires" of new Operating Systems? His install experience probably would have been smoother, and we might have actually been able to hear some real complaints about Windows Vista. ;-)

Re:Article Summary

I agree, the article suggests that Vista is crap because his two older laptops had hardware problems and that Lenovo hasn't released Vista-ready drivers yet. Sounds pretty weak to me.

But get a load of the feature list for Beta 2!!!
-New version of Solitare
-Better looking Start menu (wow)
-Better startup sound and alert chime
-Search box on every Explorer window hogging screen realestate

Re:Article Summary

the article suggests that Vista is crap because his two older laptops had hardware problems and that Lenovo hasn't released Vista-ready drivers yet. Sounds pretty weak to me.

No, the nastiest (and funniest criticism) was this;

Beta 2 is a good looking operating system with a number of new features, which will be familiar to you if you've played with recent versions of Apple's OS X.

Bitchslap...

Re:Article Summary

There's a vid on YouTube with Microsoft's Vista presentation, but with the visuals replaced with a screencast of OSX. Here it is, in three parts:

http://www.maclive.net/sid/134 [maclive.net]
http://www.maclive.net/sid/135 [maclive.net]
http://www.maclive.net/sid/136 [maclive.net]

Re:Security To Sector 7G!

Actually, I believe it's the other way around. Vista will force people to buy only hardware that's certified to run with Vista and reject everything else, thus forcing all non-certified hardware to become unsupportable and therefore obsolete. MS wants to shed all the "crap" they've supported in previous releases, and model their future OSs and supported hardware like Apple does.

Naturally, hardware certification will be available, but at a hefty price.

Re:Article Summary

Yeah, I don't really see how that's any different from XP. After a fresh install, I can't even get the network card to work on my Dell without downloading the driver from their web site on a different computer and burning it to a CD.

On the other hand, Ubuntu and Mandriva have supported everything perfectly on the last 5 computers I've had (3 of them laptops that have tons of unsupported hardware with an XP stock install), so "there's too much custom hardware" is no excuse for a miserable OS installation experience. So he does have a very valid gripe, but it's also nothing new with Vista.

Re:Article Summary

"there's too much custom hardware" is no excuse for a miserable OS installation experience

I totally agree with you. However, it is probable that Windows XP doesn't ship with the drivers for all but the most common hardware for a reason. I think that since the drivers are proprietary, they would certainly have to get specific permission to distribute them with Windows. Linux enjoys the advantage of having GPL drivers that it can distribute anywhere.

Re:Article Summary

The problem isn't that Windows XP ships with only the most common drivers, it's that Windows XP shipped 5 years ago. There's obviously been A LOT of hardware released since then. The Linux fanboys usually conveniently leave that little tidbit out though, and then claim Linux has better driver support.

Re:Article Summary

The Windows fanboys always tell us that nothing matters except that It Works (TM). Philosophy doesn't count.

Ok, then, Windows XP shipped 5 years ago. Ubuntu ships a new (free) version every six months. Ubuntu has better driver support. It happens to be because it ships more often. Maybe MS could learn something about "release early, release often"?

Happy? Or would you like to claim that there's some reason other than incompetence that Windows ships every 6 or 7 years and Ubuntu ships every half a year?

Re:Article Summary

The problem isn't that Windows XP ships with only the most common drivers, it's that Windows XP shipped 5 years ago.

If you bought a CD of Windows XP 5 years ago, then yes, you can indeed say that it was released 5 years ago and that it is a valid reason for not supporting hardware that was released 3 years ago. However, if you buy a Windows XP CD today, it is a recent version of Windows XP, it even includes SP2, so it no longer is something that was released 5 years ago... at worst, it was released 18 to 24 months ago (I don't even remember when SP2 was).

Still... We installed a very fresh version of WinXP last week at the office, with that SP2 preloaded and all, on a 4 years old computer, and it still couldn't get a network connection without us downloading the drivers from another computer and then burning it to a CD (because network drivers these days don't fit on a floppy).

Microsoft really makes no effort at all in providing even generic drivers for hardware.

Re:Article Summary

That's because people blasted them for doing that with Windows 9x. They generic drivers screwed up the computers causing BSODs. Now people are bitching because they only include certified drivers with the OS. Am I the only one that thinks this is insane? Is it really that hard to keep custom install CDs with all your in-house drivers on the same media? I use nLite with every new hardware purchase. That is when its a new model with different hardware. My install cd puts all the certified and more importantly latest drivers on the cd so when the install is finished there are no system instabilities from outdated drivers. SATA RAID controllers are the worst for this. I've had firmware upgraded on them and then old drivers don't work and if they work they really don't work well.

My SUSE installs really aren't all that different, I load up the install CD, since the installer has to be able to connect to the Internet to update itself they've included every network card driver they could find. The update then ensures that all the latest drivers and system packages are installed and the end experience is a stable and fast OS experience.

SP2 is not a new release of XP. It does contain a few new drivers but the base is still the same. That is the big difference between how Microsoft releases software and how most Linux distros do. Microsoft keeps it consistent only adding necessities like drive support beyond 160gigs. They have to for their business customers who really don't handle change very well.

So yes, XP was released 5 years ago, it has great hardware support. Dell seems to always put in strange network cards that require additional drivers but they give you a cd with them on it so no big deal. Most everytime I install it the NIC at least is least given a driver that will work. Nforce boards are an exception as they are completely new since the release of XP. Vista hardware support is interest since it appears that the drivers for XP check for XP as the version of the OS rather than specifying it as a minimum. XP drivers should work just fine. Older drivers will not as they need to be signed for the OS to let them in unless you open up the default hardware policy which is fairly easy to do if you know where to look for Windows policy settings.

I think I've said enough, there is a lot of crap floating around, last I checked XP even in safe mode had 256colors and 800x600 res with practically any video card. I'd call that some pretty amazing generic driver support. Now that people can see what they are doing they may shift their focus to making sure people can connect. I don't know but I do know if enough people complain to Microsoft about it then it will happen. That is exactly what happened with the group policy changes to Vista. A lot of changes to SMS and MOM are driven the same way.

Yes, you ARE insane!

That's because people blasted them for doing that with Windows 9x. They generic drivers screwed up the computers causing BSODs. Now people are bitching because they only include certified drivers with the OS. Am I the only one that thinks this is insane?

Keep one thing always in mind: Linux ships with all device drivers. And with no BSODs. People blasted 9x because it was so much more unstable than Linux. Now people blast XP because, if we consider only the "certified" drivers, it has worse support for hardware than Linux. How difficult would it be for Microsoft to have a decent set of updated hardware drivers?

We hear all the time from the Microsoft astroturfers that Linux has poor hardware support. XP is much worse. I once mentioned a particular problem I had, with XP bluescreening when a JVC camcorder was plugged into the USB port. They told me "but that model has no certified driver!". Well, then that model of camcorder is *not* supported by XP. And if the hardware is too old, XP has no drivers for it. I know because I have an old Adaptec PCMCIA SCSI card and a Genius scanner for which I could never find XP drivers.

Now you are saying that if the hardware is very new then XP doesn't have the drivers either. I know that too, because I have a Philips wide screen LCD monitor that I could never get working perfectly in XP, the drivers supplied in the CD aren't recognized by XP. The best I could get was a squashed 1600x1024 resolution, instead of 1680x1050. Should I blame Philips for that? In Linux it took me thirty seconds to get that monitor working perfectly, why is it so hard to get it working in XP?

If it's too old it doesn't work, if it's too new it doesn't work, if it isn't certified it doesn't work... I have a Dell desktop at work, a white box desktop at home, a HP laptop. All of them are dual-boot, XP+Ubuntu. In Ubuntu all the hardware I have works perfectly, with only one exception, an HP 3570c scanner which only works in some modes. Everything else, including the Adaptec SCSI card, the Genius scanner, the Philips monitor, and the JVC camcorder work perfectly in Linux, but not at all or with BSODs in XP.

Re:Article Summary

'Course, that's pointless if the target machine didn't ship with a floppy drive. Err....

No problem. Simply map a network drive to the.....

Re:Article Summary

How is this Insightful? It is nothing more than an excuse.

The problem is that Windows XP shipped 5 years ago.

That's the problem, right there. Microsoft's operating system doesn't contain that many drivers, but that's because a new version hasn't come out for five years - but hang on, isn't that Microsoft's fault too?

If you walk to work and arrive two or three hours late, would your boss accept that you can't be bothered to drive a car, or aren't too fond of public transport? No, you'd get in trouble for it, and any excuses you make would be ignored.

Windows Vista is coming out four or five years late, and (to use my awful analogy even more) isn't even trying to run. Linux is throwing stuff at it from the top of the bus.

You can't complain that the rest of the world is moving too fast when you're the one being slow.

Re:Article Summary

Laptops have so much custom hardware these days that it's a Bad Idea(TM) to attempt an OS installation from anything but restore CDs.

Er?

I've installed Windows XP on all of my laptops over the past few years, and everyone else in my office does the same thing, too. Laptops come with too much cruft installed by default, and in general, it's silly for us to pay to upgrade to XP Pro when there's a site license available for next to nothing here. So wipe the drive, in goes a new installation of XP Pro, alongside Linux, typically. I've never run into a problem.

Jumping to Dell's [dell.com] site for the laptop I'm on now, all of the drivers are right there ready.

Now, there aren't Vista drivers. But if what he's saying is "driver support for Vista may be lacking, so you might have trouble", I don't really see that as a problem. A lot of people only have laptops nowadays, so not being able to install Vista on a laptop easily means a lot of people aren't buying Vista.

Re:Article Summary

Am I the only one who's sitting here and wondering, "What was this guy thinking?!" Laptops have so much custom hardware these days that it's a Bad Idea(TM) to attempt an OS installation from anything but restore CDs.

Well, a year or so ago, laptop sales surpassed desktop sales.

So if you had to test an OS on a machine, statistically you would go with a laptop in 2006.

The hardware isn't terribly specialized anymore.

If Vista doesn't run on laptops, then Microsoft will be cut out more than 50% of all new computer sales.

Re:Article Summary

If Vista doesn't run on laptops, then Microsoft will be cut out more than 50% of all new computer sales.

Vista will run on laptops. But like with most XP machines today, custom drivers will be built to handle all the embedded hardware. The problem here is that Vista is in beta, ergo it has very little driver support. Thus if you want to review a beta (as opposed to doing bug reporting for Microsoft) then you should use a more standardized system. i.e. A Desktop.

Make no mistake. I am making no assertions about Vista's capabilities. I'm sure that it will follow the tradition of Windows just fine (i.e. Some stuff is good, some stuff is bad.) The only assertion I'm making is that the reviewer's strategy is flawed.

Re:Article Summary

Vista will run on laptops. But like with most XP machines today, custom drivers will be built to handle all the embedded hardware. The problem here is that Vista is in beta, ergo it has very little driver support. Thus if you want to review a beta (as opposed to doing bug reporting for Microsoft) then you should use a more standardized system. i.e. A Desktop.

Not sure I agree.

You can put together a desktop computer with 1,000,000 different hardware configurations. Laptops are actually much less configurable ... hardware-wise.

Desktops need just as many drivers as laptops (if not more), and they are hardly "standardized".

You can get a generic Dell white box, or an Alienware Gaming Monster. Both desktops, very different computers.

Laptops are actually more standard these days, IMHO.

You are unlikely to have dual-7800 Ultra cards running SLI with an AMD X2 with Cool-N-Quiet, and Raid 0 in a laptop.

Desktops are far from standardized, and I don't see any reason why it would be easier to get Vista running on one.

Re:Article Summary

It is probably easier to get vista running on a desktop simply because they are built out of commodity components, and the third party vendors are usually better about having things like vista-ready drivers available to download.

Laptops with their more specialized hardware (albeit there are fewer options to deal with) are mostly reliant on the laptop vendors for driver support, and I can tell you this: the vendors don't much care at this point about the upgrade path when Vista is still in beta. Even when it is released, current laptops may be difficult to install and support due to vendor disinterest. After all, they'd rather sell you a brand new machine with Vista preinstalled.

Still this author tends to echo the senitment of most computer users nowadays. People tend to dislike Linux and think it is hard to use because it is hard to install. Meanwhile, said users have never had to trudge through a Windows install from scratch themselves (Or they have only had to use restore CD's). Whenever they first have to they realize it's not particularly easy either. The only OS that really is easy to install in my experience has been the Mac OS, and the primary reason for this is because the OS vendor is the hardware vendor and they know ahead of the install exactly what hardware is in the machine. I personally think that people trying and failing to upgrade to Vista will switch a lot of people over to macs, but it also will simply cause a lot of people to throw away that $350 computer and just buy a new one instead.

Re:Article Summary

Not to mention, that every person here saying "run it on a desktop" means a business-class desktop and not some gaming rig that has more tweaks than there are bugs on the planet.

Ahhhhh, it's a "business class" computer we should be using now.

Is Vista a business OS?

What I see is a bunch of narrowing down of what the definition of a computer is ... to compensate for a possible lackluster showing of the Beta.

"Oh this isn't a computer, oh that isn't a computer, you'd have to be crazy to run the OS on this or that, etc, etc"

I mean, come on guys. We can redfine what a computer is down to very specific parts and even lot numbers of parts.

If the Beta is meant to run on a very specifically configured machine, then MS should clearly state as much so that people who are reviewing the product don't waste their time.

Your idea of a computer, and someone else's idea of a computer may be completely different.

And since laptop sales are currently outpacing desktop sales, the likelihood of Jane Soccermom considering her computer a "real" computer is more likely then her saying "No! That review is invalid because it wasn't run on a business class computer!!".

If you need a specific test on specific hardware disseminated to the publi as a whole (including almost every AOL users), don't send it to a mainstream outlet like MSNBC to report their findings.

And the reviewer said that Microsoft support helped him. Why didn't Microsoft tell him to abort the installation on a laptop, and obtain a "business class desktop" on which to test the installation?

It's beta, but it's not pre-Alpha.

Beta means that it's almost ready to ship, but that not enough people have had their hands on it to truly iron out all the bugs.

A Beta (or near beta) OS should work on most consumer computer hardware, of which laptops now make up the majority.

Re:Article Summary

I guess finding and installing drivers is beyond you people.

Please don't rub it in.

I've been using this computer without a video card or monitor for a solid year now and I'm a little sensitive about it.

Re:Maybe he should insatall Linux

Maybe he should install Linux instead. I'm sure the Audio drivers and WiFi drivers will work perfectly out of the box. So because they don't, Linux blows! That's some faulty logic if I ever heard it.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Article Summary

"Am I the only one who's sitting here and wondering, "What was this guy thinking?!" "
Actually this is a VERY GOOD TEST.
Many people are going to upgrade from XP to Vista and a lot of those people have notebooks.
It is hard to install is a killer and one of the things that is often used to complain about Linux.
Even with a desktop would he find the driver for the NIC? What about the video card? Suppose he got one of the new nVidia all in one motherboards with integrated video, audio, nic, and SATA?
I can tell you that when we installed Vista on our test machine we had a lot driver issues.
Our test machine was pretty standard. Gigabyte motherboard with an nVidia chipset and an nVidia graphics card. Your basic build it your self machine and it took days to get it working.
Maybe Microsoft needs to put ISOs of Windows in the internet so you download the latest version and install it with your old product code?

Maybe Not So Fair?

First off, you spelled the man's name wrong. It's Krakow, not Krackow.

Secondly, as Mr. Krakow points out, it's a Beta. Do we all know the concept of that word? It's still being tested. Ironically, he loves the operating system but his main gripe seems to be ill-supported hardware drivers. Laptops are notorious for having odds n' ends hardware in them as everyone thinks their proprietary integrated devices are the best but oddly stop supporting them after that model is done selling.

Ever installed Linux in a laptop? I think you'll find that the scavenger hunt for drivers is similar to what Gary experienced. It's a bit of a pain in the ass but a big payout at the end. Give Vista the year or two and when it's released, I'm pretty certain companies will start updating their drivers to be "Vista ready." Is this Microsoft's fault? Possibly for not making certain the early Beta versions were universal and adaptive to different hardware but I don't know enough about drivers to speculate any further.

The points he makes about the actual Vista operating system sound optimistic. In fact, I didn't hear him complain at all about the functioning aspects and features.

All in all, this review was a waste of my time to read. The man spent all his time bitching about his laptop/driver problems and no time at all on analyzing what the operating system has to offer.

Perhaps the next time he reviews Lenovo Laptops [msn.com] and raves about them, he'll actually check if their drivers are supporting all operating systems. I don't know if you can depend on IBM to support their old laptops or expect the new makers of Lenovo to support the old hardware. Hell, even my Dell laptop has some obscure sound and wireless card models which are painful to find the right drivers for.

I don't want to spout conspiracies but I think that Mr. Krakow favors the "almighty Apple" over "evil Microsoft." You can read his other [msn.com] reviews [msn.com] which may be a bit biased [msn.com]. That last one is really pro-iTunes. I guess what I'm trying to say is that this man may be a tad biased ... save yourself some time and just thoroughly read the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] on it.

Re:Maybe Not So Fair?

Not only is it beta, but by the time it ships, users won't have to look for drivers, Lenovo will have it preconfigured already. So his biggest gripe is a complete non-issue for the overwhelming majority of computer users. Sounds like a thumbs-up to me.

BTW, isn't the Slashdot mentality great? Poor driver support for Linux: "Broadcom/ATI/whoever Is The Devil." Poor driver support for Windows: "Vista Beta 2 has Major Problems." Go Figure.

Re:Maybe Not So Fair?

Ever installed Linux in a laptop? I think you'll find that the scavenger hunt for drivers is similar to what Gary experienced.

I have installed Linux on my Dell Latitude 8600 twice once with Mandriva '06 and the other time Fedora Core 3. I never had this mystical hunt for drivers you speak of. My laptop actually worked right out of the install. I had to do more drivers work on it the one time I installed Windows.

While I will admit, using a laptop for a test install of a beta is a bad idea it isn't the worst thing ever. Windows is notoriously bad for driver support and I have had to install drivers for an FA311 after installing Windows (I think it was 2k) and the FA311 by Netgear has to be one of the most common Network cards ever.

Of course, default video card drivers in Windows also suck. So even if there is a driver installed you still need to go get the "real" ones from ATI or nVidia. So, please do not attribute this problem to simply a beta install or a problem common with Linux and laptops.

He might be a bit biased, but the last article you link he does complain about the sound quality, so it is not like he is a mac fan boy who will sing their praises even when something is wrong. Also, he works for MSNBC...you do remember what the MS in that stands for right? I mean if he leaned anyway you'd think it would at least be to the M$ side. By god, can't someone just have opinions anymore without being f#cking biased one way or another?

Re:Maybe Not So Fair?

Ever installed Linux in a laptop?

Yep!

I think you'll find that the scavenger hunt for drivers is similar to what Gary experienced.

Nope! [ubuntu.com]

As a matter of fact I installed it on two laptops recently. A (now more or less) brandspanking new Samsung X50 and on a fairly ancient Dell C600. Except for a few very minor quirks (specifically suspend to disk) both work like a charm; this includes the widescreen at its designated resolution and WLAN.

As a matter of fact, while I spent an entire afternoon installing W2K on the Dell (drivers, reboot, loads of hotfixes, reboots, newer version of software, reboot, hotfix for the new version, etcetc...), Ubuntu took less then an hour in order to be installed and fully updated.

I'm not claiming that Microsoft sux and Linux rox, but in this specific case installing Windows was definitely a pain in the butt as compared to Ubuntu.

Re:Maybe Not So Fair? I disagree!

Ever installed Linux in a laptop? I think you'll find that the scavenger hunt for drivers is similar to what Gary experienced.

Yes... yes I have. Quite a few times actually. And you know what? Over the years the install process has gotten easier and easier. On my current laptop I am now running Ubuntu Dapper which is still Beta. Everything just works out of the box, including built-in wireless with WPA. My last laptop ran Fedora then Gentoo, and once again everything just worked.

I do not know of these mythical driver problems you speak of. I think you will find installing Windows these days is more of a pain in the ass than installing Linux. I see our desktop/network guys at work re-install windows from time to time, and I always chuckle about the nastiness of a windows install... and thats with *non* Beta versions. I showed one of the guys a Ubuntu install, and he ju