Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Is Windows Vista Ready? 'No. God, no.' 578

torrensmith writes "Paul Thurrott answers the question that some IT folks are asking: 'Is Windows Vista Ready?' His answer is not only no, but 'No. God, no. Today's Windows Vista builds are a study in frustration, and trust me, I use the darn thing day in and day out, and I've seen what happens when you subject yourself to it wholeheartedly. I think I've mentioned the phrase "I could hear the screams" on the SuperSite before.' He also addresses the more important question, 'When Will Microsoft figure out what's important?' and to Paul, like most IT pros, its not about when the next OS will be released, it is about having the OS work."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Windows Vista Ready? 'No. God, no.'

Comments Filter:
  • by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Thursday August 03, 2006 @03:56PM (#15842221) can Microsoft still be saying RTM by November with corporate available in December?

    How can Vista possibly be ready on time?
    • by timster ( 32400 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:02PM (#15842268)
      Well, they say that, but when pressed on the issue they insist that they will definitely release on those dates, for sure, as long as it's ready. When asked whether it will be ready, the answer is that they are pretty sure. Bottom line is that nobody in the whole world can say with any certainty when Vista will actually be released.
    • by Schemat1c ( 464768 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:50PM (#15842630) Homepage
      How can Vista possibly be ready on time?

      They should just change the name to Microsoft Vista Forever and then they can take as long as they want.
    • by Aqua OS X ( 458522 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @05:21PM (#15842850)
      It'll probably ship around that time, but I doubt it will be ready.

      It looks like MS is going to do what Apple did with OS X. They're going to get Vista "good enough" and ship that. By the end of the year massive patches will have finally made it usable.
    • by rickb928 ( 945187 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @07:38PM (#15843546) Homepage Journal
      ... were waiting for Windows 3.1.

      Or Windows 95.

      or Windows 98.

      or Windows NT 3.51

      or Windows 2000.

      How quickly we forget...

      This isn't long at all. Microsoft is re-inventing the wheel here, and it will take a while. and it will suck mightily in many areas for the first release and first service pack.

      Gang, I first ran Windows when it was called 'Windows'. And had a CPU board in the box. I thought I would grow senile before they fixed it. I was rewarded with Windows 2.0, which broke my favorite (ok, only) game. 3.0 was a joy, I need only reboot every few hours or so. 3.1 and then 3.11, and I need only reboot twice a night, while using a dialup ISP to run AOL. Admit it, you did too. Or IRC. Or USENET.

      I neglected OS/2 at this point. Just as well. Only my bank, my ATM, and my whacked buddy were running it. Who cared? It was almost like Windows. Almost.

      With 95, I bought the upgrade, installed it without trouble, and ran it without rebooting for *29* days! Woot! Then the first service pack came out. Never ran that long without rebooting again.

      Windows 'ME' we will let rest in peace. I never ran it save for testing and support. Poor blighters that got it pre-installed. We forget...

      The NT saga was just as painful. 3.0 stank. 3.1? 3.51 was tolerable compared to nothing. 4.0 finally rewarded us with a server that needed rebooting only once a week. My Novell servers sneered, and rightly so. And they lost. You think Microsoft has security trouble now? NT exposed the kernel like a pervert at the playground. Very bad. We forget...

      2000 at least delivered on the promises. After a service pack. We forget...

      I am in no hurry to buy Vista. I may even let it cook until SP1 is out. Besides, I got lots of other stuff to look at. Suse, Fedora, Ubuuntu, the list goes on...

      But carping about delays with Vista? Yeah, whatever. I hope you get it quickly. those who want it NOW, you deserve it quick. And dirty. Ewwww.

      We forget...

  • by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @03:57PM (#15842232) Homepage
    I think I've mentioned the phrase "I could hear the screams" on the SuperSite before.'

    Yes, it's almost as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.
  • by gcnaddict ( 841664 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @03:57PM (#15842233)
    Someone initiated a vote for the Tech Beta testers to see if there will be a Beta 3. It's accessible only for techbeta, but it's here []
  • Then wait (Score:5, Insightful)

    by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:00PM (#15842254) Homepage Journal
    No point in having an OS that frustrates you when you already are using one that frustrates you less. Users don't care about release deadlines (other than some who want the latest toys ASAP). The only people who care about Vista release "deadlines" are corporate stock holders. There's no value in rushing it out if you end up angering customers who may later switch to another vendor.
  • by RonnyJ ( 651856 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:00PM (#15842257)
    Of course it's not ready - it's still a beta - it hasn't even reached the first 'Release Candidate' stage.

    More importantly though, will it be ready in time? From the relevant part of the article, which of course is omitted from the Slashdot summary:

    Will it be ready in time? Actually, I think it could be.

    • But it is in "feature freeze." Therefore if there are design issues it will probably be released with them if they don't allow it time to go through another whole cycle.
    • by MrFlibbs ( 945469 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:14PM (#15842375)
      Ah, but TFA also predicts an October release date would be followed by a steady stream of patches. The gist of the article is that several things are seriously broken and Microsoft should not ship Vista until it's ready, whenever that is. He admits he has no idea if that's this October or August 2007.

      The article also raises the question as to why enterprise users are getting Vista first since they typically are slow to update. Perhaps because they're already paying for upgrades? TFA doesn't pose an answer -- the author just says he doubts very many will attempt an upgrade until SP1 and so why not give it to the consumers first.
      • Here's a possible answer. Many of the new consumer level features aren't present in corporate versions of Vista. Microsoft might be trying to get the core os done and then give them a little more time with the end user fluff. It might also be a shakedown cruise. IT people will most likely start testing vista right away for later deployment and find bugs in the process. I suspect a very quick SP1 release within 3-5 months of corporate customers getting it. Remember NT4 had a service pack immediately. Its also possible they will pull their old games and release a "b" release and later do a special edition or some crap. Windows Server R2 reminds me of Windows 98 SE. It allows them to EOL buggy software faster after they've got a service pack or two under their belts. It also is a great revenue source as people re-buy what they already have. Ballmer is calling the shots now and he's a greedy guy.
      • by dan828 ( 753380 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:41PM (#15842574)
        The answer (put forth by a MS guy at a seminar I attended), is that many enterprise users bought software assurance contracts with the understanding that they'd get Vista as part of the contract, and a good portion of those contracts will be ending this December. No Vista this year would mean some bad PR at the enterprise level.

        And yes, this is entirely hearsay.
    • by Overly Critical Guy ( 663429 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @05:26PM (#15842891)
      More importantly though, will it be ready in time?

      That's the freakin' point of his article, Sherlock.

      All Thurrott says is that it's possible, if Microsoft is able to fix all the current bugs. But it's been stated many times that this product is the buggiest of any Windows beta ever this late into the cycle. He says he could be proven wrong tomorrow.
    • Will it be ready in time? Actually, I think it could be.

      Flying pigs come to mind.

      It does not matter when they get it out, they are hosed. They have been making and breaking promisses for five years now. "Don't buy anything, our latest and greatest is just around the corner," is a song they've always sung but Vista is a new low. It will be a miracle if they get it out the door within six years, and it's going to be so broken no one is going to want it.

      Microsoft started work on their plans for " []

  • FTA (Score:5, Funny)

    by Reverend528 ( 585549 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:03PM (#15842283) Homepage
    In other words, Microsoft should have simply pulled an Id Software and said they'd ship Windows Vista when it was ready. Period.

    I believe that is called "pulling a 3d Realms".

  • Stating the obvious. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Chaffar ( 670874 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:04PM (#15842288)
    Well if Vista was half-ready it would already be on the shelves. The holes can always be patched later... (Not flaming Microsoft particularly, but software developers in general :)
  • by MSFanBoi2 ( 930319 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:05PM (#15842292)
    I do.

    People said the same thing for years before and after its release about it's compatbility with Windows 3.x software, about how un-behaved the beta's were, but that didn't stop it from becoming the most popular OS in the world for quite a few years...
  • by 10Ghz ( 453478 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:06PM (#15842309)
    OK, OK, so it's still in beta. But it seems to me that he is having problems with Windows that are not solely restricted to Vista. Why does he then put up with it? Why not simply say "Enough!", and try Linux or Mac instead? Surely the alternatives couldn't be any worse? Is it simply because he earns money by writing about Windows, so he HAS to put up with it, so he could pay the bills?
  • by amliebsch ( 724858 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:07PM (#15842317) Journal

    How many times is Slashdot going to be suckered by Paul Thurott? He has one basic strategy: first, review it poorly. This gets him all kinds of attention and credibility as people rush to hold him up as such a wise person, who is willing to tell the truth! Then, later, surprise! Everything he wrote before is better now, and $PRODUCT is the best thing ever to exist, and if you believed him then but don't believe him now, you're obviously a lying hypocrite!

    Seriously, people, get a grip. This is a set-up for when Vista is available to consumers, at which time - mark my words - he will write about Microsoft's amazing efforts to pull off the seemingly impossible and deliver a polished product that, despite not completely living up to Paul's high standards, is still the best ever made! Highly recommended!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:08PM (#15842322)
    Where I work we've got a software product which to be kind would be best taken out and buried in an unmarked grave at midnight (with the mandatory stake, garlic and silver bullet) at some lonely crossroads.... its buggy, seriously flawed implementation of our design (the software is a third party product built to specs from my company). Every month we lurch from one crises to another but our programme management team will not face reality and allow us to slip release... we must release on time no matter how flawed is the message.

    With 6ish months to go until drop dead date we can only fix major or critical issues which will seriously impact functionality of the entire system.

    I have total sympathy with the MS developers and designers as I suspect they've got the same bone headed project managers as my firm :(.
  • by antdude ( 79039 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:09PM (#15842327) Homepage Journal
    I am also using the latest Vista builds (not the public beta 2) at work. It is still NOT ready to me because it drives me nuts. The biggest complaint I don't like about it is the User Acess Control (UAC). I know it can be disabled, but the design is just annoying (memorized alt-c hot key so I don't have to move and click with the mouse) and I don't think it will be changed much. For every thing I run as an administrator seems to pop up the permit/deny. I read this interesting article [] about why UAC works this way. It remindes me of the way Mac OS X (10.2.8 -- haven't used the newer versions) works.

    What's worse on this test machine (ASUS K8V SE Deluxe, Athlon 64 3200+ 754 CPU, 512 MB of RAM, etc.), my screen tend to black out before and after the pop-ups occur. I don't see this problem on a co-workers' computers. Maybe it is because of the old ATI Radeon 9600 All-In-Wonder video card. I am using the Aero effects (very pretty). Or worse, the pop-up is in the taskbar minimized without focus. So I can be using a program that calls another EXE, then nothing happens because I haven't granted permission because it is minimized!

    Other things that bugged me:
    1. How do I access c:\ProgramData\Application Data\? I keep getting permission denied even though my account is already set with an administrator access.
    2. How come tab, arrow keys, and F3 keys don't work in I miss being able to recall history and hit tab for autocomplete.
    3. In, I cannot seem to change long paths with cd command like: cd "Program Files". It says: Parameter not correct - "program.

    I was a bit surprised when MS decided to declare RC1 a few builds ago (5472?). I really hope Microsoft decides to delay again and take their time! So what if it loses money! They're rich and can get more after Vista is released with few problems. Make it good and maybe I will use it at home (using XP, Linux, and Mac OS X). :)
  • wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by dolson ( 634094 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:09PM (#15842329) Homepage Journal
    So Vista isn't close to being ready. I'm sure that if it is pushed to shelves as scheduled, that nobody will buy it because it is so incomplete. And nobody will pirate it either. This will definitely be the Windows killer that we have been hoping for.


    Microsoft can box up a petrified turd and people will still buy it.
  • by From A Far Away Land ( 930780 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:10PM (#15842343) Homepage Journal
    How could it be ready yet? They haven't perfected the DRM obviously, and you can't release an operating system that might allow someone to burn CDs with impunity, or use an evil analog video input device.
  • Don't care (Score:5, Interesting)

    by resmungo ( 905153 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:11PM (#15842349)
    The upgrade from 98 to XP was a no brainer because of how much more stable
    and quick XP was. Vista honestly has nothing I want. The longer they take
    the better since I heard that the next DirectX will be Vista only, probably
    just to piss me off when I can't play new games.
    • Re:Don't care (Score:5, Interesting)

      by steveo777 ( 183629 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:33PM (#15842497) Homepage Journal
      As long as Vista doesn't end up like Windows ME, I'll be happy. ME was the absolute worst Windows OS experience EVER. I'd rather run 3.1. Back when ME came out, I worked as a tech intern for a warehouse/distribution center. There was me and my boss. That was it for tech support there. He would by Dell workstations every few months when one of the PCs crapped out and I couldn't fix it with spare parts. It was 2001 and there were still a lot of Windows 95 and a few 3.1 machines still being used. The 3.1 machines were out in the warehouse and my boss didn't care what happened to them, or about the fact that I was out rebooting them three times a day.

      The thing that got me the most is that he was adament that windows NT, 98, 95, and ME were all more stable than 2000 which came on the new machines. I even set up tests where I left an NT, ME, and 2000 machine running with Office 97 running on each for three days. The NT machine was running like a slug, the ME machine BSODed after about 6 hours and two more times. In the end, he allowed 2000 on my machine, but the reality of it was that he was afraid to learn a new OS.

      • Re:Don't care (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lawpoop ( 604919 )
        I'm amazed at how much Microsoft gets away with. You'll be happy as long as Vista isn't totally broken? ME should never have seen the light of day. Why should anyone settle for this non-upgrade 'upgrade', when we have a perfectly functional version of Windows called XP?

        I'ts like we're living in Soviet Russia. "What can we do? Microsoft is on every computer... just eat your gruel and be happy that it wasn't posioned like the last batch..."
  • by whoisvaibhav ( 654143 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:11PM (#15842354) Homepage
    I know someone who is developing software for the Vista platform. They are porting their product to the next step. For them, everytime there is an announcement of a delay in release of the platform, it is a cause for a quick meeting to re-assess the risk it poses to their plan.
  • by minus_273 ( 174041 ) <> on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:12PM (#15842360) Journal
    " I especially like the way I can't delete certain items from the desktop (randomly, it seems, like a game)"

    I think we recently read [] about MS' new and improved casual games on Vista
  • by Mykid8yours ( 988498 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:13PM (#15842374)
    " most IT pros, its not about when the next OS will be released, it is about having the OS work."

    Yeah, you first have to release the patch to patch the patch that patched the patch before the patch. Once the patches are in place, you gotta patch those. Then the OS might work. If not, patch it again.
  • by Danathar ( 267989 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:14PM (#15842378) Journal
    You think it was hard to get biz to upgrade from win2k to winxp? Wait till Vista comes out. Even WITH Enterprise agreements (ala subscriptions) I don't think CIO's are going to deploy it for years.

    The average user is able to use exchange, word, excel and surf the web without constant crashes (unlike with win98). As far as many managers are concerned, if their PC's can do that then their employees OS's are just fine. Microsoft is going to have to have something REVOLUTIONARY to get them to upgrade, OR simply they'll have to end support for XP to force many buisnessess to upgrade.

    If even ONE app on the enterprise has to be retrofitted to work with Vista you can bet Vista will be the one put on the back burner, not the apps they have to fix.
  • by Bobby Orr ( 161598 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:14PM (#15842383)
    And then there are the online pundits, many of whom are barely old enough to legally buy alcohol. These guys are classic. Let's just say that a lack of experience and a strongly worded opinion don't result in the most coherent of arguments and leave it at that.
  • by ENOENT ( 25325 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:16PM (#15842390) Homepage Journal
    Vista SUCKS because 3rd party software that is documented to NOT WORK IN VISTA and even issues a pop-up to that effect, in fact, doesn't work in Vista Beta 2.

    And his company's website is run by evil trolls.

    And some unspecified prerelease of Office 2007 doesn't work exactly right.

    Therefore, Vista must suck.

    (OK, there were some valid complaints in there about Vista. But mostly not.)

  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:16PM (#15842391)
    Been using the beta since it was released to the public and haven't had any problems at all with it. Seems pretty rock-solid to me already. I game with the latest game software, I've run all sorts of apps, I use my 360 as a media center extender. No crashes, no conflicts, no major troubles. The only problems I've had were with my video card's s-video output (think this is a problem with nvidia's driver, not with Vista itself) and with a freeware app called "pdf995" that I use for converting Word files to pdf.

    Just my personal experience.


  • by linguae ( 763922 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:19PM (#15842406)

    ...the more time Apple has to add features and functionality to OS X (according to the WWDC 2005, Leopard should be released in December or January), and the more time the FOSS community has to improve its offerings (KDE and GNOME get better with each release, Linux distributions get easier to use, and FOSS software offerings get a bit more compelling).

    MS will still have a head start even if Vista is delayed another year, since Vista will be sold on all new machines, and not everybody is going to run out and buy a Mac or install Linux. However, more people are starting to learn about OS X and Apple's offerings (especially the fact that Apple switched to Intel, and the fact that they can still use Windows on those machines if they choose to, although OS X is really good; I showed my parents and siblings my MacBook and they got to use it for two days. They fell in love with it), and more people are starting to learn about FOSS. If Vista isn't all what it is cracked up to be, then Mac sales and Linux downloads would go up.

    As for me? I hope that Vista improves. Us Mac and *nix users have to use Windows boxes for work and for school, so it would be nice if we got to use a much improved version of Windows. But, after they have gutted out all of the features that I have desired (such as WinFS and the Monad shell), I'm not so enthusiastic about Vista. And, yes, I've got a chance from a friend to use the beta for a few hours. Vista's interface is pretty nice, IE 7 is a browser worth using, and I am fond of some of the new features. However, everything I can get in Vista in January I already have on my MacBook, and the gap may be larger, depending on what Steve Jobs reveals next week during the WWDC 2006.

    • by Yvan256 ( 722131 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:29PM (#15842472) Homepage Journal
      If only there were a girl that was like this OS []....

      You mean, a girl like this []?
    • by MBCook ( 132727 ) <> on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:37PM (#15842525) Homepage

      No kidding. I switched last year and I expect OS X to be a little better. I was amazed what the difference was, and using XP often drives me nuts because of how much it misbehaves.

      Now I read about Vista being worse than XP, popping up "Enter administrator password" boxes all the time, etc. They already took out all the interesting Vista features (WinFS, for one).

      The fact is, when Tiger was previewed Apple had all those banners that said "Redmond, start your photocopiers". They obviously need new ones, because in that time they have not only not managed to copy most of the features, but Apple is about to release the NEXT set of great stuff at about the same time as MS's copy of Apple's last 3-5 years.

      If there is something everyone in the computer industry should pay attention to, it's the WWDC keynote on Monday. Vista has become a joke, and I don't expect much to change. Even if they can release it on time working perfectly with all the features they currently say it will have... it will be outdated and uninteresting.

  • linux or windows? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by edmicman ( 830206 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:29PM (#15842474) Homepage Journal
    So which is more difficult for XP users to switch to? Linux or Vista?
    • Re:linux or windows? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Yvan256 ( 722131 )
      Or OS X? Because face it, some people just don't have the hardware required for Vista. If you're going to buy a new computer, might as well consider all the options. And a Core Duo Mac mini is perfect for most users (apart from gaming).
    • by Kenshin ( 43036 )
      Who says we have to switch to anything? XP works fine.

      Even so, it's looking like a good time to get a Mac. I can have OSX, and continue to use XP.
  • by pcontezini ( 583243 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:30PM (#15842479)
    Right know i'm building a list of the stuff that is really not working on my vista, and it gets bigger everyday:
    * Sound, since i've installed AC3 codec
    * Internet Explorer, god knows when it stopped working, the first thing i've done is install firefox, I think IE detected it and stopped working, it has some personality
    * Libjpeg in use with Gaim (nothing appers, ok I like gaim in windows, and it worked fine on XP)
    * Network access to other windows machines
    * The Bug reporter, that uses some IE functionality
    * The video's thumbnails freezes Explorer.exe (i've to set it to details on every folder before it loads thumbs)
    * Microsoft Visio with spell checking (type Andre freezes every time you try)
    * Emule is writing to a folder that doesn't exists (C:\program files\emule\incoming) but, when i try to open what i've downloaded from emule, it works misterously from the neverland! I still can't find the files.
    * Unzip anything, it moves the file inside the zip to the outside, and leaves the zip with 0 bytes (nice way to loose your files)

    And the list keep growing everyday, total of 2700 bugs send with the automatic bug report, and can't send manual errors because of the great broke bug report.
  • Folder Art (Score:5, Funny)

    by flathead_iv ( 155332 ) <> on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:30PM (#15842481) Homepage
    Why did I just waste four years making nice album art for music folders and custom folder art for photos?

    Yes, why?

  • Just Plain Bad (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HermMunster ( 972336 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:38PM (#15842536)
    I signed up for the free download of the beta. After the download I installed it on one machine, a lesser of the many machines I have. Nonetheless it was a very capable machine. It was an AMD2500+ with an nforce2 board. It also had a 128mb 8x gforce 4 AGP card. Topping it off was an 80gig HDD with 1 gig of DDR 333 RAM. Oh, and it had a wireless card in it from ASUS.

    As you can see that machine is very capable by today's standards.

    I did a clean install without any other partitions. The install went well. After it booted up and I was able to work with it I noticed there was a driver for the video card but there was no AERO interface features. I searched and searched to see if I could find a spot to force it on. After some searching I found nothing.

    I also found that the wireless card was essentially non-functional. This was also very disappointing. I connected up a wire and installed the nvidia drivers that were available for Vista. I managed to get to the internet and do all the updates where Microsoft's online update finally found a driver for the wireless NIC. I installed that and rebooted. After booting the OS reports that the connection for this is limited or has no connection.

    I worked with it for a while. I looked and looked for video drivers that might provide me with the AERO interface. I also looked and looked for drivers and found none.

    Most of the chipset drivers I had to use were older XP drivers. It was a serious hassle trying to get and install vista drivers.

    I let that machine sit for some time but went back to it periodically to try to learn more about the interface. Networking sucked pretty bad. I couldn't find drivers for some devices. The lack of the AERO interface indicated that this was just XP with a new face. Sure there was IE 7.0 but I had given up on IE long ago in favor of Firefox. I looked at the configuration screens. Confusing but everything seemed to be there. One thing to note is that there were too many ways to get things done. There was a high percentage of features that didn't work and it was obvious that even the screens that did pop up for configuration often had the old XP graphics--indicating they were just altering existing code to work with Vista.

    I then received a copy of Vista in my AP subscription and as coincidence would have it I had just backed up and was whiping my main XP box which has a 64 bit 3200+, 1 gig of ram and gforce 6600GT, and a few hundred gigabytes of storage.

    I did the install and found that I had the AERO interface. I liked it. After using it for a while I downloaded the beta vista drivers from nvidia. I installed them and the system seemed fairly stable. I did notice huge clunkiness to accessing files and folders and determined that it was the promise SATA drivers. I moved my connectors to a different set of SATA ports off the mobo and the clunkiness went away.

    I used Vista for a few weeks and tried to test every piece of hardware--printers, cameras, networking, external harddrives (usb and eSATA). I tried the microphone. Tried burning CD/DVDs. Tried flashcard readers, etc. Most everything worked. The only issue I had was with the file access. Opening a drive could take 30 seconds. Opening a folder after that another 30 seconds, clicking back another 30 seconds. Closing and reopening. More 30 second intervals if it even opened them at all. It didn't matter if it was my IDE drivers, my SATA or eSATA. It was incredibly slow. Often times it would lock.

    No, Vista is FAR FAR from ready.
    • Re:Just Plain Bad (Score:3, Informative)

      by yeremein ( 678037 )
      It also had a 128mb 8x gforce 4 AGP card.

      You need DirectX9-class video hardware to use the Aero interface.

      Your GeForce4 is either DirectX8 (if it's a Ti series card) or DirectX7 (if it's an MX series card).
    • Re:Just Plain Bad (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Thursday August 03, 2006 @07:42PM (#15843565)

      I can take the pain of a troll or flamebait mod, but from memory, this search for the killer driver, reboot, and settle for the disappointment is what Windows has been like since 95. It kills me when I'm having Linux issues that are oftentimes obscure and rare and I'm talking with people that come from Windows backgrounds, they say, "Did you download the latest drivers?" "Did you reboot?" I bite my tongue and think to myself, "Real operating systems come with drivers and don't need chronic reboots for them to run. Rebooting means, not running".

      Maybe I'm just getting old or spoiled by Macs, but is there an end in sight to the mantra of fetch driver and reboot and accept things as they are?

      I don't reboot my car, and don't chronically have to update it, and search the web to drive it. I don't have to screw around with my timed thermostat for my house, search the web, reboot, and screw with it. I don't have to do this with my DVR which is a computer and works well. I don't have to do this with my Mac either.

      IMNSHO, for average use, computers are black boxes that just work like microwaves, car stereos, cars, and everything else. They are not a religion or a cult, they are appliances that do stuff.

      I guess I am getting old, and I'll gladly take my sysadmin paycheck for monkeying with Linux, Solaris, BSD, and any other *NIX variant that gets the job done, but for general stuff, I'll just buy a computer that just works. No spyware, no viruses, no popups, none of that crap.

  • by Hairy1 ( 180056 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:47PM (#15842608) Homepage
    So why does it matter that MS gets Vista out before Christmas? I'm betting that one of the big problems Microsoft faces is that its Software Assurance program was meant to deliver value, in that it ensured the right to upgrade. If I were an IT manager who had signed up for Software Assurance and paid out tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, and got exactly sqat I'd probably be a little pissed. I'd probably be reluctant to sign up for another three years because even if MS to deliver Vista the older machines can't even run it, so you can't upgrade. You might also be a little worried that your entire business could be cut off at the knees if Microswoft ever decided to use Windows Genuine Advantage to disable PC's.
  • by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @04:47PM (#15842611)
    Like many I downloaded beta 2 expecting something which was feature complete and a good representation of what the final product would be. What a piece of shit beta 2 turned out to be. The broad strokes were okay (the theme is nice, some of the new apps are nice) but it just felt so flakey in every detail. UAC made life unbearable. The classic mode looks horrible with the new explorer. The new explorer looks horrible period (great idea to stick the menus *under* the toolbar btw). While not a bug, I also felt totally disappointed that MS *still* don't see fit to fix paintbrush, notepad, calc or any of the other basic apps to improve them to the point of usability. I don't think much of KDE, but I was yearning for it after the monstrosity that was Vista beta 2.

    I am not sure how Microsoft had the balls to call it a beta. I've used lots of MS betas and in the main they're quality products with a few bugs to iron out. Not this time around, this was alpha country. I've never seen such a lamentable effort. I knew within 30 minutes of playing around with it that there would be no release this year.

  • by shoolz ( 752000 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @05:21PM (#15842846) Homepage
    I'm still downgrading to Vista the second it's released.
  • Performance Issues (Score:3, Interesting)

    by prandal ( 87280 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @06:26PM (#15843239)
    Apart from another brain-dead UI design, it appears that Vista has some annoying performance issues, which my be one of the reasons Microsoft snapped up Sysinternals.

    Mark Russinovich's blog [] makes interesting reading.
  • by toadlife ( 301863 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @07:54PM (#15843619) Journal
    Hell no.

    I've been a "Windows guy" (admin) for many years now, and I have a pretty decent understanding of how the NT line of Windows works - particularly the security model. Up until Vista started getting all of this pub, I had never heard of the "Windows expert", Paul Thurrott. After reading his first flaming of Vista, where he bashed it for prompting him to delete an icon the all users desktop, I knew why I had never heard of him; He doesn't know all that much about Windows. Thurrott is your classic "Mouse Click Selection Expert", Windows user. He knows where all the buttons are in Windows that "do stuff", but he has absolutely no clue what's going on under the hood.

    Most of his bashing of Vista has involved issues with UAC. This is an area (security) where his knowledge of Windows hovers right around zero. I really don't don't think he fully grasps how big an endeavor it is to switch over a user base of 500 million from an OS where everyone runs as "root" and takes those privileges for granted to an OS where everyone runs with a lower privileged token (and I bet Thurrott doesn't even know what a token in Windows is). Apple did it with OSX, but instead of fully supporting legacy apps, they damned the old OS/Apps to virtual machine hell.

    I managed to STFA (Skimmed the Fine Article), and sure enough Paul's big griped have to do with things that are totally out of Microsoft's control. Specifically, he bitched that his Photoshop Elements doesn't work, and he bitched that some (ActiveX laden??) website didn't work in IE7. I've run Vista on several different computers both at home and at work, and not had any problems that were not related to third party software or drivers.

    It very well could be that I, knowing quite a bit about Windows, don't perceive Vista as having huge problems, even though it does, so I won't declare Vista "ready". Thurrott on the other hand is hardly qualified to declare Vista "not ready", as his expectations of what an operating system should be able to do are unreasonable.
  • by twitter ( 104583 ) on Thursday August 03, 2006 @09:31PM (#15843988) Homepage Journal

    Gaaa, look at all the excuse making and shine on. While the problems he's having are very funny from a man who so often uses the phrase, "just works" [] to describe things that don't, the double think involved is disturbing. What does it take to cure a fanboy?

    Businesses have never lined up to install a new Microsoft operating system. They always install new Windows versions gingerly and years after the fact. We're all familiar with the "wait for Service Pack 1 (SP1)" mantra that many enterprises extol.

    XP is on Service pack 2 but Windoze 2000 is still the most used "enterprise" desktop OS. Why? Because M$ has not added anything of value in six years. Conservative practices are not an adequate excuse here.

    beta testers never think any Windows version is ready: If we left the ship decision to testers, we'd still be testing Windows XP.

    The beta testers are right. With rooted Microsoft machines making up 80% of the world's spam, we can say that no version of their OS is ready, despite the newest being six years old.

    ... beta testers simply like their exclusive little clique to continue as long as possible

    I'm not sure what issue he has with this attitude. It takes non free software to create software elitism and it's all based on someone else calling the shots for you.

    And then there are the online pundits, many of whom are barely old enough to legally buy alcohol. These guys are classic. Let's just say that a lack of experience and a strongly worded opinion don't result in the most coherent of arguments and leave it at that.

    Once again, what a hypocrite.

    We might call Windows Vista a "train wreck" for simplicity's sake. But it's getting better. Seriously.

    Others have noticed he does this every release, [] shilling to get people ready to buy second rate.

    [bad GUI complaints] So you open Network from the Start Menu and wait ... and wait... and wait... while the damn thing finds all your networked PCs and servers. In XP, this process is instantaneous.

    Instantaneous? Microsoft's brain, dead Netbios broadcast based networking protocol has never been instantaneous, quick or reliable. They made it complex in a failed attempt to keep others from being able to work with it. It compares very poorly to something like sftp through konqueror, where you can use organized bookmark folders to very quickly, securely and reliably reach any computer on the your LAN or the whole freaking internet. It looks like the networking in Vista still sucks despite the all the .NET hype.

    Photoshop Elements 4 has literally gotten worse over time. Now, some key functionality simply doesn't work or, oddly, only partially works.

    Is that an apologist reflex reaction, or what? M$ changes, product_x stays the same, but product_x has "gotten worse over time". I know what he means, but the language is amazing. Why can't he just say that vista changes broke Photoshop? He knows that lots of other programs are going to be broken too and that, as usual, everyone will have to replace all of their software when they buy a new computer if they want to maintain their current functionality.

    As an aside, I wondered if GIMP would have the same problems. he does not seem to have ever tried or mentioned that program []. How funny.

    In IE 7, the rich edit control that forms the basis of the third party ActiveX control we used to post article bodies not only doesn't work, it is actually deprecated in Vista so that it will never work, even if you manually install it. That means

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990