‘Mojave’ showcases Vista’s image problem

Almost anybody who keeps track of the tech press will agree Windows Vista has an awful reputation. Is that reputation justified, though? News.com reports that Microsoft has carried out an interesting experiment to answer that question.

In short, the experiment involved rounding up Windows XP users skeptical of Vista’s merits, asking them to explain their dislike for Vista, then showing them a "new" operating system code-named Mojave. News.com says "more than 90 percent" of the users had a positive impression of this new OS. One user even uttered, "Oh wow," the slogan from the ill-fated Vista marketing campaign. But here’s the twist: Microsoft was actually demonstrating Vista.

If you think that all sounds a little too convenient, you’re not the only one. Considering the sheer amount of negative press Vista has garnered, though, the OS’s image problem could very well be that bad. Microsoft plans to release footage of the experiment in some form or other so we can see for ourselves—in fact, News.com predicts the footage could show up publicly "as soon as next week or even at Thursday’s financial analyst meeting."

Comments closed
    • herothezero
    • 11 years ago

    q[

    • fantastic
    • 11 years ago

    If it installed without errors and worked reliably I’d probably be using it now. If I get ambitious I’ll try again when SP2 comes out. Preinstalled and tweaked is not what I got out of the box. The damn thing lost my video card every 5 minutes! WTF! XP works fine…

    • havanu
    • 11 years ago

    I had vista installed. Had the 32bit version up and running, pre SP1. Didn’t like it. Too many clicks to get stuff done. Dual booted for a while, than went back to XP MCE. Installed Vista 64bit with SP1 two weeks ago. Things felt better, for a while. But this same feeling started creeping up again: XP just made my work…flow. With Vista, there’s this nagging feeling that it just takes one more screen/action/click to get the same result. After a week or so, I just went back to MCE. I’ve had it with Vista. Call me when the next one arrives, I’ll gladly take it for a spin.

    • green
    • 11 years ago

    one thing probably missed (given the nature of the site) are the types of admins out there
    in all seriousness, not even admins can be trusted to run a computer properly
    or have setup a computer properly to prevent other users from completely breaking it

    “oh sure but that’s the admin’s fault so they’d have to wear that responsibility”

    that would be true until the end users of the computers who were given high level admin accounts, skip their administrator and complain to microsoft that their computer doesn’t work and it’s MS’s fault
    would you tell them to bug their admin, or accept the fact that since you’ve got over x% of computer users that they’ll be too dumb to understand the concept of an ‘admin’ account
    everytime ‘send report’ comes up on crashes the details go back to microsoft. what are the odds on the report says what account type was used and the percentage of those that were either power user or admin
    so if microsoft see a giant portion of errors/issues coming from admin/power accounts, do you really think they’re going to trust all admins/power users not to screw things up?
    hell i’ve seen libraries with info kiosks installed on top of xp logged in with admin accounts. ADMIN accounts on a publicly accessible terminal. yea, what could possibly go wrong (and yes you could browse their internal network)
    and it’s not just a windows issue either. yeah linux is great because it’s got sudo. that is until you get and idiot admin who decides, “i’m not giving them admin accounts, but instead i’ll give them sudo access to… EVERYTHING”

    so what the hell do you do when even the admin, the person charged with setting up the computer for security and reliability, can’t set things up properly?
    how about…. not trusting the admin…

    someone even pointed out that if you’re an admin and if you want to delete certain files on your system i should damn well be able to
    well fair enough except as responsible as people may be with the account there’s 1,000’s of people with admin access that just aren’t.
    so when they delete system files (and they will) are they gonna say “whoops thats my fault”, or are they gonna say “stupid OS sucks”
    this seems appropriate:
    “Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.”

    with that said i’m not justifying microsoft’s choices
    my main complaint is microsoft’s default installation
    comes pre-installed with so much bloat it’s ridiculous
    1 guy with 30 minutes could change default install and improve things dramatically
    no, i don’t want web-server processes on by default
    no, i don’t want telephony services on automatic
    no, i don’t have a smart card reader
    no, i don’t need camera/scanner services on auto
    no, i don’t want to install every possibly keyboard profile on earth
    etc, etc, etc…

    • stmok
    • 11 years ago

    I don’t think you should turn off UAC.

    There’s a reason for it: To escalate privileges to administrator when needed. Vista appears to be the first Windows to actually treat the Administrator account as a “standard user”, and only escalates it when needed.

    The principle is taken from Unix/Linux/OSX. (So Microsoft actually done something right for once!). Those who’ve used Ubuntu will know about sudo (command line) and gksudo (GUI desktop). Its the same concept.

    Although, some of the things UAC prompts you for are a little over the top. Things like certain shortcuts, etc. I suppose you can tweak that in gpedit.msc. (In Ubuntu, you are only asked for a password when you’re making system wide changes like installing an application, updating the system, etc…You don’t get asked with trivial situations).

    As for the GUI, I tend to agree. I recently was awarded a copy of Vista Ultimate as a “thank you” for a bunch of friends I helped over the years.

    I installed it on a test system, and even when I switched it to “Windows Classic” mode, it still feels a bit off. It seems like they changed things for the sake of looking different. Some parts are like: “WTF? Why put it there?”

    The good thing, (after a year), the printer works. (It only worked in black and white, but it appears HP finally resolved that issue). So after testing it on my test box, I resolved my sister’s laptop issue.

    • Ryoandr
    • 11 years ago

    Vista lack of an icon toolbar (the 2 forward / back arrows do not count) is its bigest flaw.

    Really. Where is my “parent folder” icon…

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      Breadcrumb view. Click the parent folder.

        • Ryoandr
        • 11 years ago

        K, now give me back my copy, cut, paste, delete icons ๐Ÿ™‚

          • Meadows
          • 11 years ago

          Make your selection and click Organize or right-click or use the keyboard shortcuts, or drag&drop between two windows. It’s not like XP comes with those icons by default, though you can enable them to waste UI space. ๐Ÿ˜‰

            • A_Pickle
            • 11 years ago

            Seriously. Who here actually uses those buttons?

            • SpikeMeister
            • 11 years ago

            Not me. Ctrl+C/X > Ctrl+V

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            Exactly, but the poor guy wanted more buttons on the UI.

            • Usacomp2k3
            • 11 years ago

            Right-click menu’s for him then.

      • onlycodered
      • 11 years ago

      Alt + Up Arrow

    • FireGryphon
    • 11 years ago

    Am I the only one who thinks that Microsoft is making a bad move by making public fools out of their own customers?

      • MadManOriginal
      • 11 years ago

      Probably, because the monopoly status gives them the ability to do so with little harm to themself.

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      I think this is more like opening their eyes, rather than mocking them.

    • A_Pickle
    • 11 years ago

    Vista-hating, know-it-all-but-not-really consumers being dumb on camera? Sold!

      • eitje
      • 11 years ago

      Users Gone Wild, Volume 4!

    • shaq_mobile
    • 11 years ago

    vista stole my virginity. killed my father. burned down my village.

      • moose17145
      • 11 years ago

      and raped my mother….

      /familyguy/

    • MadManOriginal
    • 11 years ago

    FWIW I’ve been using Vista x64 for a month or so and like it generally speaking. The one thing that bothers me is what gets mentioned most – UAC.

    – It should only require one confirmation. The security aspect of it is fine but why ask permission 2-3 times? That just causes irritation.

    – Some of the things UAC prompts for are rediculous, like interface options.

    – Probably a few other detailed irks about it but I can’t recall others right now.

    I’ve decided to keep it turned on however because I use IE (yea I know, don’t bother telling me to use something else) and disabling UAC entirely, which is the only option, whether directly or through ‘always elevate’ workarounds which are effectively the same thing, means no protected mode and I like the idea of protected mode. Even though I’ve only ever had one real malware infection in the last 10 years which was entirely my own fault I still like the protected mode idea.

    MS should have made UAC configurable so that I can leave it turned on for some things and not others.

      • Krogoth
      • 11 years ago

      Yep, my only complain with UAC is lack of configuration.

      The default settings are fine for average joe users, but some of the security measures are annoying, cumbersome for power users.

      A UAC configuration tool would also make Vista and 2008 admins, security staff lives a lot more easy. ๐Ÿ˜‰

        • ProzacMan
        • 11 years ago

        Uhm you do realize that you can configure UAC with group policies right? Or is it that you have heard so much about it not being possible that you just failed to even look?

          • MadManOriginal
          • 11 years ago

          Why hate on Krogoth? I have the same issue. And gpedit.msc does not come with Home Premium which I have, only Ultimate and (I think) Business.

            • d2brothe
            • 11 years ago

            That would be my main complaint about vista, the bloody versions…

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            XP Home had a lot of stuff XP Pro didn’t as well so Vista isn’t really different in this case.

            • A_Pickle
            • 11 years ago

            I didn’t particularly like the different versioning of XP, either. I like Mac OS X’s versioning model: One version for ALL users of PC’s, and one version for servers. Just make “Windows Vista” and “Windows Server 2008.” None of this tiered versioning crap.

            • CampinCarl
            • 11 years ago

            It can’t work like that. Apple controls ALL of it’s products, so it dictates the performance, etc. of each machine. Microsoft can’t do that (because that’d make them a monopoly, wouldn’t it?), so they must create different versions which appeal to and function well for different sets of machines and people.

            • A_Pickle
            • 11 years ago

            I… still don’t see how that wouldn’t work. HP, Dell, Acer, the OEM pre-builders would determine the price and function of each machine.

            • ProzacMan
            • 11 years ago

            No hate just tired of the people complaining about Vista without researching what they complain about first. As for not having gpedit, then just manually change it in the registry as that is all gpedit really does, just a front end for the registry changes.

            Here is a link that even explains how:

            ยง[< http://www.askvg.com/how-to-tweak-user-account-control-uac-options-in-windows-vista-home-basic-home-premium/<]ยง

            • WaltC
            • 11 years ago

            Good find, thanks. The irony about all of this to me is that for years we had to endure countless flame fests wherein people constantly complained about Windows security as being deficient in this, that, or the other thing compared to this, that, or the other OS…;)

            So, Microsoft comes along and writes Vista from the ground up to be far more secure, and then what happens? People complain just as mindlessly about this, that or the other thing called UAC providing security that is just too annoying to deal with, and so suddenly the former, far less secure OS seems more attractive to these people.

            It’s bizarre, but it is also plain human nature with people getting upset when they finally get what they asked for…;)

            • MadManOriginal
            • 11 years ago

            That’s pretty good although it would have been better if MS just put those behaviors in to a ‘UAC configurator’ besides gpedit.msc for all versions of Vista, rather than the on/off option that comes standard. That was what I was getting at. I will have to read up on UAC and those registry keys to see what they really mean but I still think some things are missing. I get UAC’d for trying to save files to a secondary disk sometimes ๐Ÿ™„ which is kind of silly. Even a simple ‘do not ask this again’ would be nice but I suppose lots of people would do that and defeat the purpose of UAC.

            And the reason I said ‘Hate for Krogoth’ is that people jumped on him and not me even though I said the same thing and started the thread.

          • Krogoth
          • 11 years ago

          IMHO, the UAC options within local security settings and group polices are still too limited.

            • ProzacMan
            • 11 years ago

            What do you dislike that you can’t change? If you needed to change anything else you would just be disabling it!

      • bthylafh
      • 11 years ago

      TweakUAC. It’s an easy way of disabling the annoyances while leaving IE in safe mode.

        • MadManOriginal
        • 11 years ago

        Thank you I will check that out.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 11 years ago

          *edit: It looks like it is nothing more than a radio button GUI way to auto-elevate, I was aware that tweak was possible but it opens up UAC too much because it’s a systematic setting…might as well turn it off. What we need is a way to tweak UAC so taht it won’t ask certain types of prompts while still asking others. Program installation would be good to keep UAC’d for obvious reasons, but desktop or user setting changes should not be. That’s what I was hoping for, somthing that would let me checkbox ‘yes/no’ for various situations.

          Maybe I should just set up an actual user account instead of having my only account be the main Admin one :/ I just hate having to relog to do something if needed.

        • Meadows
        • 11 years ago

        Defeats the point. If “annoyances” are automatically accepted, then Internet Explorer’s “Safe Mode” is void with it.

    • BobbinThreadbare
    • 11 years ago

    And people think AMD has a bad marketing department.

    • greeny
    • 11 years ago

    I personally aint a fan of vista but I dont suppose there is anything wrong with it as such its just slower than xp, I dont have much need for DX10 yet so for now I’ll take the extra speed and stick with xp

    • Flying Fox
    • 11 years ago

    Anybody wants to guess how many comments this one will get with the Vista bashing? Considering the Vista bitching thread is up to 34 pages now as of this writing…

      • Scrotos
      • 11 years ago

      But you at least have to be happy that there are less “OMG VISTA SUX LOLZ” posts and more “Vista makes me unhappy and here are specific examples as to why…” posts.

      Also, I think it will top out at 20 posts.

        • moose17145
        • 11 years ago

        Man were you off on that guess…. it’s up to about 5 times that…

          • Scrotos
          • 11 years ago

          Ok, then I revise my guess to 25!

            • moose17145
            • 11 years ago

            better! I just hope you learned you lesson lol.

    • swaaye
    • 11 years ago

    Heh heh. Yeah people are predictable. NewFangled is neat, indeed.

    • alex666
    • 11 years ago

    I use Vista in one of our home systems I built, and it’s not nearly as bad as some claim IMHO and it’s got some good features.

    That said, I find it amazing that MS would stoop to such a silly “experiment” at this point in time as a means of buttressing the reputation of Vista. Their time would be better spent, say, fixing UAC and giving the user greater input and control. This so-called “experiment” is the kind of stuff that makes MS look frankly foolish.

    • WaltC
    • 11 years ago

    Microsoft announced a few days ago that it had sold 180,000,000 licenses for Vista in the ~18 months the OS has been shipping–an average of ten million licenses per month. This seems to clearly indicate that the “Vista image problem” exists for the most part in the minds of those who haven’t bought it.

    Good for Microsoft, as this experiment proves that the “bad image” some people insist on believing Vista has is primarily the imaginary fiction concocted in the main by people with some sort of anti-Microsoft axe to grind. Vista has given me no trouble at all–in fact, far less trouble than I had with XP when I installed it in ’01.

    It’s always amazed me that over any given five-year period people will spend thousands of dollars upgrading hardware and buying new software–but just ask some of them to part with ~$200 every five years for a new OS–the foundation for their entire platform–and watch them squirm and complain. It’s very bizarre.

      • atryus28
      • 11 years ago

      You must know a lot of rich people. The people I have delt with and spoken to feel that spending $500 on a PC is expensive and tacking on another $200 to that so that they have an OS is not cool to them. They usually don’t spend much on the programs either and don’t expect to have to “re-buy” them or upgrade when they get a new computer. Hardware is something they can touch and see, software is not. Again though, you might know people with a lot more money than I do. I have never spent $1000 on a new machine yet and the only person I built a machine for cost $1200 and it was a quad core with a modern GPU and such to last the next 5 years. He also decided to go with Ubuntu instead and is much happier.

        • Scrotos
        • 11 years ago

        I also agree with you. I just bought a $500 quad-core computer to last me the next few years. I figure I can get a better video card sometime later.

        I think WaltC is missing the point; people are complaining about how Vista WORKS, not about how much Vista COSTS.

        Yes, people don’t want to rebuy new devices because the old one doesn’t have Vista drivers, but I think that’s only part of the “why won’t Vista work like I want it to!?!?” sentiment, rather than being a core reason of Vista = too much $$$.

        Though perhaps WaltC wasn’t trying to make that point since he just talked about the cost of the OS. Which… ok whatever, most people are getting Vista with a new PC anyway, so it seems like a moot point.

        • WaltC
        • 11 years ago

        Rich? I think you are forgetting the fact that if you buy a $500 PC today most likely it will ship with Vista included.

        But, seriously, many, many people spend more than that on just 3d cards…;) That’s not to mention the games they buy, and over a 5-year period that can add up to quite a lot. Most of them would certainly not declare themselves “rich” by any means.

        I agree with you though that for those people looking for the cheapest way out that spending more than $500 isn’t required–if all you want to do is browse the Internet and send email. And if you don’t mind teeny monitors or squinting at TV sets…And if you don’t want to buy or play 3d games…and if you don’t want to do much of anything else, really, aside from browsing and emailing…;)

      • BiffStroganoffsky
      • 11 years ago

      I would like to have a breakdown of those licenses. How many were OEM…what percentage were government or corporations/business who have ‘maintenance’ contracts and have to buy those licenses because MS isn’t offering XP licenses…what are the number of those licenses that will actually be used to run Vista and not XP? You can make numbers say anything you want if you put the right spin on it.

        • Scrotos
        • 11 years ago

        At one point a company I was working for was trying to buy more Win2K licenses. Our licensing contact at MS said that we could buy XP licenses (since 2K licenses were no longer available) and they would count for valid 2K licenses.

        So yeah, the numbers don’t always tell the whole story.

        • WaltC
        • 11 years ago

        I prefer the “spin” that they’ve sold 180,000,000 licenses in 18 months…;) I much prefer that to the spin that says those 180,000,000 licenses “don’t count”…Heh…;) BTW, I have three Vista licenses myself–I bought them off the shelf.

        I don’t know why anyone might say that “using Vista” presents a problem. I’ve been using it for ~16 months and have encountered no problems at all that have even made me think about reverting back XP.

    • gat0rjay
    • 11 years ago

    I don’t think Vista is deplorable. But for experienced Windows users who know what settings they like, the little things build up and it just feels cumbersome. Vista is like having to read a childrens book, while XP is an old novel you really enjoy.

    I really like some of the added “toys” like the quick cascade to switch between windows, and the superior search functions. And stupid stuff like UAC can simply be turned off, so it’s of no worry to me.

    Having said that, though, I still have a lot of small gripes and annoyances that I can’t accept. Not to mention the fact I don’t understand why I have to boot up w/ 56 processes on a relatively clean system, vs my XP machines that boot up with 24-30 processes.

    Some of my other personal gripes/issues are:

    Why have they gone and reordered/renamed basic features and controls like “add/remove”.

    Why has desktop properties been replaced by the more cumbersome “personalize” that forces you to open multiple windows (vs just changing tabs) to get where you want.

    The start menu has merit, I like the search box where Run used to be. Besides that it’s worse than the XP start menu though. And, of course, the XP start menu is worse than the “classic” 98/95 variety which I still use. So it’s really one step forward and two steps backwards…

    Why is there no longer a thumbnail view option? This is extremely annoying after you “adjust for best performance” and turn off all of the “eye-candy”. In XP adjusting for best performance doesn’t actually REMOVE useful function. In Vista I no longer have thumbnail previews of my pictures b/c vista only has “Large” icon views, assuming you want all their bloated aero crap to be running.

    Also, why can’t I customize my folder options by adding buttons for folderviewdelete/cut/copy/paste/moveto/copyto/properties/etc? And the left pane in windows explorer is now far less useful with its default options.

    Overall it seems like they tried to make it more “user friendly” and actually removed and/or convoluted features advanced users have come to enjoy and expect.

    I don’t use Vista much though, so there may be solutions to these issues. If there are I’d love to hear them.

    Just my take…

      • Scrotos
      • 11 years ago

      I agree that the UI changes were arbitrary and enraging. I would be ok with them if they saved me time or mouseclicks. However, they just obfuscate things even more and are less efficient than some of the old 2K/XP layouts. Yeah, the add/remove was… trifling.

        • moose17145
        • 11 years ago

        Glad I’m not the only one who noticed that. To me it feels like they tried to make it so user friendly a 3 year old can use it… and now that is exactly what it feels like to me… and childs toy that you can’t really do much with except look at it’s shiney colors… Meanwhile XP feels a bit more like something i can actually get stuff done with, if for no other reason than it’s not so locked down and unwilling to be modified to suit what you need it to do.

    • GTVic
    • 11 years ago

    File copying is extremely slow even with SP1. The other major problem is Windows Explorer. It has way too many view configurations and 50% of the time displays something incorrect.

    If I’m looking at my source code folder I don’t want to see how well my DLL is rated or the author or what the Genre is. It starts grouping things when I don’t want them grouped and I have to change every single folder. Drives me nuts…

    Also, why do I have to confirm twice each time admin access is required under UAC. That is horrible.

      • Scrotos
      • 11 years ago

      Yes, that bit me as well. I think you can either do a registry hack to reset the folder views to just one folder. Or, you can do what I did, and that’s go through as many folders as you can and set them to, say, “Detail” view and apply to all folders OF THAT TYPE.

      Yeah, the “apply to all folders” got changed to “apply to all folders of that type”. The auto-detecting of contents is still damned annoying, but at least now I get them all in a list view that I like.

      It’s one of those stupid little things, ya know. Ability to do a “for all folders, period” or “do not autodetect folder types, force all views to: …” would fix that issue without a complaint.

      But instead you have to jump through hoops to make the user interface similiar to XP/2K and consistent throughout the OS, if that is your intent.

      It seems like an arbitrary change just to make a change. And while I’m sure some people appreciate it, others like you and me don’t want our .txt files to be assumed to be MP3s or videos or whatever Vista decides.

      Vista’s latest trick is to split folders with, say, 3 files in them, to a view that has A-L and M-Z with 1 file in the first section and 2 in the second.

      That’s just… fantastic.

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      I actually saw a new record on my PC last time, file copy between physically separate drives at around 180-200 MiB/s under my Vista 64 (SP1). Yes, with Windows Explorer.

      I do have an age-old Quantum Fireball drive too in this box, weighs in at a major 20 GB of capacity, that’s the only piece of junk in the computer that’s consistently slower than 40 MiB/s (when reading; writing is worse yet).

      You heard that right, you found someone who’s satisfied with the performance of the OS.

    • thermistor
    • 11 years ago

    We are secretly replacing the coffee served in this fine restaurant with Folger’s Crystals!

    Or…

    We secretly switched the pasta seved in this NYC-based Italian restaurant with Pizza Hut (I think that’s what it was after my guffaws) pastas.

    Which goes to show the average person is happy with mediocre products.

    I’d like someone to come to my house and secretly replace the rubber chicken dinner with some fillet mignons.

    • ostiguy
    • 11 years ago

    This morning with Vista:

    Using Explorer : copy the vmware 2.0 RC1 550ish MB .exe to a local disk from my laptop…… nothing happens

    Using copy in cmd.exe – instantaneous response – access denied – the file kept its permissions as I moved it on the source machine’s disk. Fix the ACL, and the copy works.

      • Krogoth
      • 11 years ago

      it is practically the same with *nix OS. ๐Ÿ˜‰

        • Scrotos
        • 11 years ago

        I’ve been having issues wherein when I try and copy files from a remote network share, Vista tells me I don’t have the access to drag them to my local hard drive. Not, “you can’t access the remote file”, it’s “you can’t put them on your own hard drive”. I’m an Administrator user. It’s a partition I created. In a directory I created. And own.

        I couldn’t edit some .txt file in my c:\program files\someprogram\ directory, same issue.

        I have yet to find a real solution besides, “oh, just select all the files on your hard drive and change the owner to be you”.

        This begs the question: why?

        Why should I have to change the owner of everything? I’m an Administrator. My effective rights say I should be able to access these files and directories. Is it UAC? Why would UAC not let me copy stuff from a remote XP machine to my local Vista machine? Why can’t I edit a text file and have the save work on a non read-only file?

        This type of stuff “just worked” with Win98, Win2K, WinXP, and OS X 10.3.x, 10.4.x, and 10.5.x when I’ve run across this junk in the past. What’s going on with my Vista? I haven’t changed my workflow but now I can’t do the same stuff?

        And infuriatingly, sometimes Vista will randomly let me copy files over without complaining about rights. I just don’t understand.

          • d2brothe
          • 11 years ago

          *sigh*…there is no pleasing everyone. Many would complain about the EXACT REVERSE problem. On most other OSes, you don’t have permission to do those things without entering the root or admin password. It does the same thing. It just worked under win98/se/2k/XP because it WAS WRONG. You can’t just give those permissions or your vulnerable to viruses….you can’t have your cake and eat it to…security or laziness….you gotta pick….

          And no, it doesn’t “just work” under OSX, you clearly aren’t editing protected files…

            • Scrotos
            • 11 years ago

            No offense, but if I have the rights to the file and it’s a text file of an application that I installed (DIKO, a video processing script), why in the hell is Vista making that a “protected file” for?

            And how do I change that designation? It’s not that UAC is popping up. It’s that when I try to save the altered plaintext file, Notepad says too bad, so sad. This is not some core Vista OS library, it’s a damned text file in an application I installed!

            As for the “just work” bit for OS X, that example was more about the copying files from a remote computer to my local hard drive. I wasn’t editing plists or anything; haven’t had a need to.

            I don’t know if other operating systems “do it wrong” by letting me access my own local hard drive, but it seems counterintuitive for them to block me, the administrator and owner of the hard drive and all files/folders inside of it, from copying more files INTO said hard drive/folder from a network share.

            Where’s the security there? You know, I bet I could pop on my old Red Hat 9 system, mount some remote samba share or whatever, and cp to my home directory (or whever I have write access) to my heart’s content.

            So you take your rolling eyes and your big sighs and shove ’em. I have a real problem and have been looking for real solutions or at least real reasons as to why these issues are cropping up for me. Your attempt at taking the high-and-mighty “blah blah it’s about the security, you peon!” road is useless.

            You neither read nor understood my post. You just glossed over it and decided I was some whiner who doesn’t appreciate security. Save your sass for someone who’ll let themselves get rolled over by you; I’m having none of it.

            • d2brothe
            • 11 years ago

            Look…files in the “Program Files” directory are protected because they’re PROGRAM FILES. If they were world writable, viruses can come in and implant themselves anywhere they wish. There is a reason to block access to files on your HD, since you don’t want shit coming in and writing to executables.

            And yes, this is a text file from an application you installed…but its in the wrong bloody directory…its in the bin directory. Its the same thing on linux, if you tried to edit a file in /bin…you need permission…

            Other windows OSes have done it wrong by allowing these files to be edited…which means programs just flew along with the assumption that it would always be this way. This is where the problem comes…you’d have the same problem on any OS if applications made those assumptions.

            Now, I don’t know what problems you have about file copying…but this is the one I’m addressing. This is a problem with legacy support…and its one thing microsoft has done well (look at apple…they dump support for anything > 5 years old). The majority of win95/98 software will run, after a few tweaks, but they’re starting to break things, and it shows.

            As for it being notepad that conks out…I’m not sure I believe under unix if you edit a world readonly file with a text editor…it’ll let you edit it, and then fail to save…*gasp*…hows that for some sass…

            • Scrotos
            • 11 years ago

            I can su or chmod something in /bin and then edit it, no? If I were logged in as root, I’d be able to do whatever I want, I assume?

            I don’t see anything for that for Program Files. I’m an admin user, have read/write permissions, and still nothing.

            Yes, I know what happens if I try to hit escape and then :wq! with a read-only file. What did you want me to say, I used wordpad instead? Or edlin? (is that even still around?)

            I can’t “chmod” the text file. It’s already set to NOT be read-only. Yet Vista is treating it as such. Vista made an arbitrary decision to not allow any user, even admin users with the proper rights on files that are NOT read-only, to edit files in Program Files? And that’s good design? Yet a program already installed in there can update its own binary, say, a new version of Adobe Acrobat Reader?

            I don’t agree that blocking an admin user who has the proper rights on a file that is not locked down is a good use of security. An arbitrary and confusing one, perhaps, but not a good one.

            What should I do, take ownership of all of Program Files to be able to edit the text file? I don’t want to do this kind of thing for the same reason I didn’t turn off UAC–I’m trying to use Vista with its intended security in place. I just cannot understand how this particular piece of work can be considered security if the proper authorized users cannot bypass it.

            Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I can’t edit stuff in /bin no matter what. It’s been years since I’ve dorked around on my old linux system and that’s how Security is supposed to be done. But I kinda doubt it.

            • cygnus1
            • 11 years ago

            No Scrotus, you ran notepad as a regular user. Unless you right clicked on notepad and chose ‘Run As Administrator’ you were using notepad as a regular user.

            It’s not a sophisticated enough program to ask for elevation to admin to save a file for you. It just tries, Vista says No, No, you don’t have permission, and so it tells you No, No you don’t have permission.

            I guaran-damn-tee if you open notepad as an administrator, then open that txt file, you’ll be able to edit it and save it. Right there in the ‘Program Files’ directory.

            Just because you don’t understand the thought process behind securing certain parts of the filesystem, or how to get around that security if you need to, doesn’t mean it’s broken. And it doesn’t mean Vista is being arbitrary either.

            • Scrotos
            • 11 years ago

            I will try that.

            However, we go from being able to double-click a file to having to open the application as an administrator (which I already am–why is it not inheriting my current rights?) and then navigate to the file to open it within the program.

            And again, I’m an administrator already, the file is not read-only, Vista tells me my effective rights should allow me to do what I want with the file.

            And you’re saying that Vista isn’t broken with their security when I have to, as an administrator user, jump through those hoops? I suppose this is Vista’s “su”. Now I wonder if I run as Administrator itself, if I will still have to click on “run as administrator” for this to work in a non-obnoxious manner.

            • moose17145
            • 11 years ago

            Funny you bitching about that… because i have been having some of the EXACT same issues with my vista acting the same way and idk what the hell it’s doing or how it is deciding what crap i do or do not have permission to access. And example would be my External Hard drive. I don’t have anything critical on it at all, and yet Vista won’t allow me to get into it, and yet i have it shared over the network so that i am not constantly having to reconnect it to all my other computers every time i want something off that drive. Over XP it just seemed to work, but vista on my new laptop for some reason keeps giving me BS that i do not have permission to access that drive. Even though i gave it permission on the host machine to allow all computers on my network to view, and even EDIT that drive. I have no idea what the hell is going on either, but it has been getting very frustrating cause i couldnt even find a workaround that worked for that issue. Eventually i just ended up giving in and just copied the entire thing to my laptops hard drive… which upsets me because that’s about another 35 gigs of space on my laptop’s hard drive that i shoudlnt have to be using in the first place if everything worked the way it should.

            • cygnus1
            • 11 years ago

            I would go and check your network settings and make sure your laptop it’s setup on a public network. it has to be set to private to be able to share anything out

            • moose17145
            • 11 years ago

            To share outbound things. This is pulling it from my external drive hooked to my desktop. So it should be pulling things in… not sending out. And it is setup on a private network, and set as such… etc etc etc… more or less i tried checking that stuff a while back… tried changing the settings with it, as well as on my desktop trying to resolve the issue… nothing. Like i said… eventually i just gave up and got sick of dealing with the headache…

        • blubje
        • 11 years ago

        except the UI actually tells you permission denied…

          • Krogoth
          • 11 years ago

          That is odd that Vista’s GUI did not yell about it, however the OP’s CLI stated what was the problem.

    • herothezero
    • 11 years ago

    q[

      • kc77
      • 11 years ago

      With large collections iTunes and WMP have serious problems. Usually somewhere in the 8K range of music.

    • Thresher
    • 11 years ago

    I don’t think any of the major complaints with Vista have to do with how it appears. It has to do with all the crap it breaks, the stuff that won’t work with it, the way some legacy devices (like Creative’s cards) get shafted.

    All that said, SP1 is a much, much improved release and I’ve been much happier with it. However, I do not see enough of a value equation for upgrading from XP to Vista SP1. If you get it on a new computer, you will more than likely be happy with it.

      • willyolio
      • 11 years ago

      i was pleasantly surprised by vista. most of the problems are, in fact, third-party problems. i just bought the 4850, and it crashed like crazy until 8.7 drivers. now everything’s fine. as for creative, that’s not MS’s fault. it’s creative’s attempt at a cash grab, forcing their old customers to upgrade to newer cards.

      there are only a few real problems i’ve run into:
      – during install, if you have any removable storage connected via USB (even an empty USB card reader) vista will not install. truly stupid, but this should be a once-in-a-build occurrence.
      – 2D programs that don’t support aero glass have trouble going fullscreen. zoomplayer, when in fullscreen mode, still shows the start menu. now i’m actually using windows media player, though, and it’s so much better than previous versions.

      and windows media center is not made for large media collections. navigating my 10k+ library of music is a horrendous task.

        • MadManOriginal
        • 11 years ago

        Must have been something off about your install of 8.6s, or maybe you needed the hotfix. I used 8.6 and rarely had a problem. Oh, when it did have a problem due to a program not closing the driver recovered gracefully, That’s an advantage of Vista right there.

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      It was a good thing they kicked Creative in the nuts. They deserved that. C-Media has been shining more ever since, providing some competition.

      • BenBasson
      • 11 years ago

      /[< It has to do with all the crap it breaks, the stuff that won't work with it, the way some legacy devices (like Creative's cards) get shafted.<]/ That's a bit different to the situation with other devices. Creative sound cards still work, albeit with fewer features. Creative are purposefully crippling their Vista drivers for specific products when it has been proven that the full functionality can be obtained by a third party.

    • willyolio
    • 11 years ago

    hint hint: they’re going to announce windows 7 “early”

    it’ll just be vista with a new theme. vista haters will hail it for “fixing” all of vista’s problems.

      • Scrotos
      • 11 years ago

      Actually, that’d be awesome if they did that! I mean, I know Win7’s basically going to be Vista 2.0 anyway, but it’d be great if it were really just Vista SP2 with a new default theme. Hah!

    • Satyr
    • 11 years ago

    I don’t explicitly have any problems with Vista, I just don’t really see the point in it. I only use Windows on my home machine because I’m a gamer. I work on Linux or OS X. It seems a lot of hassle and cost just so I can use DX10.

      • d2brothe
      • 11 years ago

      – More secure
      – More effective use of high end hardware
      – Revamped network stack
      – Rewritten kernel
      – ….

      I could continue…there are plenty of reasons, new things under the hood…

    • herothezero
    • 11 years ago

    q[

    • bthylafh
    • 11 years ago

    Who wants to bet that Microsoft’s footage mysteriously omits dealing with UAC?

      • Logdan
      • 11 years ago

      And what’s so hard about dealing with it? ๐Ÿ˜‰

      Or to put it a better way, what’s so hard about understanding its purpose and then working with it to keep your system more secure from unauthorized changes/malware compromises?

      I often pose this question to our more “vocal minority” users here at my place of employment.

        • dmjifn
        • 11 years ago

        l[

      • cegras
      • 11 years ago

      Have you ever thought about .. (gasp!) turning it off and relying on your common sense?

      If you want to run a “setup.exe”, how is UAC going to make you change your mind?

      Vista is the bastion of M$ haters, who just say ‘it sucks.’ (Mac users especially). I have a friend who uses Vista. He just disables UAC, and then everything is peachy. Sigh.

        • Logdan
        • 11 years ago

        “Have you ever thought about .. (gasp!) turning it off and relying on your common sense?”

        Because common sense will protect you against a zero day exploit. Right?

        “If you want to run a “setup.exe”, how is UAC going to make you change your mind?”

        It’s not, but that’s not it’s purpose (i.e. you can’t patch stupid). It’s to prevent applications unknown to you from getting Administrative control over your computer. Take the recenly Flash exploit for example…

        “I have a friend who uses Vista. He just disables UAC, and then everything is peachy.”

        And your friend is doing himself (and his computer) a disservice. For one, he’ll never learn how to work with the UAC, which probably won’t help him learn future versions of Windows. Secondly, his system is now open for exploits, that if executed with evil in mind, will comprimise his entire system.

        Now don’t get me wrong, the level of security desired is up to each individual user. However, I’d rather be informed that the “sex leg” image I just looked at is trying to install something with Administrative control. ๐Ÿ˜‰

          • Meadows
          • 11 years ago

          Logdan is right. It has been proved previously that UAC invariably blocks any rootkit thrown at the system – back when there was a system vulnerability contest between Mac, PC and Linux. The Vista machine needed to turn UAC off only to create an even playfield to begin with.

          Of course rootkits are just one example.

      • Flying Fox
      • 11 years ago

      More likely they were showing applications that /[

    • Rakhmaninov3
    • 11 years ago

    I hate how so many of my peripherals don’t work with it.

      • Corrado
      • 11 years ago

      Why is this Vista’s fault? Peripheral manufacturers completely dropped the ball. They had YEARS to prep Vista drivers… and didn’t.

        • Tamale
        • 11 years ago

        it doesn’t matter who’s fault it is, if his peripherals don’t work with vista then vista is not going to be an enticing product for him, period.

        fault isn’t everything people, remember, if XP works and vista doesn’t, it’s not like people are going to go out and buy all new stuff that works in vista just so they can upgrade their OS. that’s not how it works!

          • Scrotos
          • 11 years ago

          That’s the main point that no one ever seems to get or care about. It’s true; just because it’s someone ELSE’s fault that Vista isn’t working like XP, doesn’t mean that Vista doesn’t get the black eye for it.

          When OS X didn’t run all the old MacOS Classic programs in the early days, Apple got hell for it, too. Doesn’t matter that the older programs (or device drivers for unsupported devices) didn’t work, the main change was the OS and, for most people, the OS was therefore not as good as what it was replacing.

          • atryus28
          • 11 years ago

          At an AMD / MS conference for sys builders they actually told us to be HAPPY that people were being forced to upgrade their stuff so we could make more money. I don’t agree with screwing my customers out of money just because. That was supposed to be a selling point for Vista to sys builders. No one took it lightly or agreed that I talked to.

      • d2brothe
      • 11 years ago

      How many peripherals work with mac or linux…

      And yea, its clearly microsoft’s fault that HP isn’t supporting decade old printers….

        • DASQ
        • 11 years ago

        Oh Jesus Christ! My goddamn parallel ports do nothing when I hook up my dot matrix printer to it in Vista! Vista sucks!

          • Scrotos
          • 11 years ago

          In both my previous jobs in retail and in banking, those industries made heavy use of dot matrix/impact printers for printing forms/receipts and anything with the need for carbon copies. It was the most cost-effective. I think all of those printers I ran across used parallel ports for their main way of connecting.

          One or two used a parallel-to-ethernet adaptor, but that was the exception rather than the rule.

          It sounded like you were being a bit dismissive of anyone who wanted to use an older printer like that, but they are heavily used in at least the retail and banking business areas. Probably others, but I do not have first-hand experience with those.

            • DASQ
            • 11 years ago

            Yeah, the banking industry is also mostly using 12″ CRT’s that have two colours: Green, and nothing.

            How many banks are using Vista?

            • moose17145
            • 11 years ago

            It’s true… I am working retail right now and we still use an old dot matrix / impact printer because it makes two carbon copies when it prints. One original, one for the customers to keep… and a third that can be used either for mail in rebates, or as another copy for the store to keep that is often used in the event of a faulty product that needs to get sent back to the manufacturer. I doubt very much that it would work with Vista… meaning MS isn’t getting us to upgrade anytime soon. It is just simply too vital of a piece of equipment for us to simply “do without”

            • Scrotos
            • 11 years ago

            I dunno, maybe look behind the counter next time you’re at a bank. Or ask ’em to turn the screen. Most of the banks I’ve been in lately are using LCD screens and GUI interfaces.

            Some of the old travel agency computers have interfaces that use CLI, but they were moving over to GUI stuff when I last worked with them back before 2000.

        • kc77
        • 11 years ago

        More than you think.

        • ludi
        • 11 years ago

        Older HP laser printers (1990s-era typically) are widely regarded as some of the best laser printers ever built in terms of reliability and longevity, and many are still in service. I’m still using an HP LaserJet 4L with the buffer memory upgraded to 2MB. Even though it’s old, slow, and prints images in low-resolution newsprint-style format, it meets my needs and prints up to several thousand sheets from a single $70 toner cartridge if I’m not running image-heavy.

        And yeah, it only has a parallel port. So what? It works.

          • d2brothe
          • 11 years ago

          True true, and very true, I’m using one of the first colour laserjets, I even have a machine running winxp as a printer server just to run it. But I’m willing to accept that its not longer supported in vista because its over a decade old…I don’t think thats unreasonable.

    • blitzy
    • 11 years ago

    i am yet to see someone concisely explain the so called downfalls of vista, usually its people blaming blaming vista for issues related to drivers or third party software

    vista is better than xp, it’s not perfect but i definitely wouldnt switch back to xp. the issues i have with vista are minor, such as windows update being annoying, certain control panel and menu layouts that need improvement

      • TheEmrys
      • 11 years ago

      I’m not a big fan of the “super-administrator” mode you have to go into for some changes.

      • Staypuft
      • 11 years ago

      I’m gonna have to agree with you. All I see on here is people complaining about how Vista sucks, but the only reasons I ever see are vague mentions of UAC (which, if I recall, was supposed to be in your face to make you aware of what was going on). I also have several friends (cs and comp e majors) who have no problems with Vista..

        • Valhalla926
        • 11 years ago

        Speaking of UAC, and I apologise for bringing it up here, but I didn’t want to make a new forum topic on a small issue, is UAC any different from “enter root password” prompts in linux?

        From all the complaints on it, it sounds like UAC asks you to click OK whenever you click an icon. But that’s just angry users ranting about things they don’t like. But from what little I can really tell, it seems to be the same as linux’s root password thing. So are the complaints from users that have never had to confirm administrator-level tasks before, or is UAC really that annoying?

          • TRS-80
          • 11 years ago

          The difference is Linux you’re just a regular user, with UAC you’re already supposed to be an administrator, so why is it asking you again? Also the number of tasks UAC is required for is far higher than day-to-day use in Linux, partly because in Linux you’re not expected to be root all the time. MS have admitted UAC was a blunt instrument to get developers to change their practises by beating users with it, meaning users will prefer apps that do it right.

            • Logdan
            • 11 years ago

            “The difference is Linux you’re just a regular user, with UAC you’re already supposed to be an administrator, so why is it asking you again?”

            No, this is not quite correct. With the UAC, you are ALWAYS a regular user until you provide authorization to perform a task with Administrative ritghts. It’s asking you because it needs to confirm that it’s actually YOU that is performing the request, and not some malware or something simiarly undesired.

            • DrDillyBar
            • 11 years ago

            precisely.

          • Logdan
          • 11 years ago

          “Speaking of UAC, and I apologise for bringing it up here, but I didn’t want to make a new forum topic on a small issue, is UAC any different from “enter root password” prompts in linux?”

          To put it simply, no, it is not.

          “From all the complaints on it, it sounds like UAC asks you to click OK whenever you click an icon.”

          No, it’s nothing that constant. It’s only when you perform an action (like opening Windows Firewall, or trying to access a folder that a User account normaly does not have access to) does it ask you to elevate to Administrator.

          “But that’s just angry users ranting about things they don’t like.”

          Bingo! You gain 1 Internet.

          “So are the complaints from users that have never had to confirm administrator-level tasks before, or is UAC really that annoying?”

          In my opinion, no. Going from XP (with Administrator rights all the time) > Vista (with the UAC on) was not a problem at all. However, I think most are put off when they don’t understand WHY the UAC is asking them permission for a certain task. This is probably a combo of being used to not being asked in XP and a lack of understanding as to why a task requires Admin rights to be performed.

            • ChaosX2
            • 11 years ago

            The annoying part of UAC is that you can get up to 3 prompts for one action. For example copying files to the program files directory. It’s better than XP but not as nice as Linux or Mac. On linux or mac you are asked once on Vista you can be asked more than once to do the same action.

            The implementation in Vista is flawed but better than nothing, which is why I leave it on. It’s a minor irritation.

            • Logdan
            • 11 years ago

            “The annoying part of UAC is that you can get up to 3 prompts for one action. For example copying files to the program files directory.”

            This was (or at least should’ve) been fixed in SP1. It also affected the Start Menu.

            • StashTheVampede
            • 11 years ago

            MS’ empire of desktop dominance is a direct results of each user being “root” all the time. No prompt, no questioning, they simply are $diety, period.

            UAC changes this — you must agree to do a specific action. OSX makes you enter the actual admin password! Why aren’t Mac users complaining? This concept of requiring permission has been around since OSX 10.0, so it’s fully ingrained into the use of the OS.

            A few years down the road, no one will complain about UAC.

            • Scrotos
            • 11 years ago

            I’d say that Mac users would be complaining if the MacOS prompted for that password with as much frequency as UAC does. It only does it for things like software updates, accessing the disk with low-level utilities (like a defragmenting program), or installing applications using an installer, rather than the traditional method of just dragging and dropping the application bundle into the “Apps” folder. I don’t use MacOS a whole lot, so I might have missed some of the prompting, but it really is rather unintrusive.

            On Vista, sometimes I have to run Enemy Territory as “Run as Administrator” and then UAC will pop up to confirm that I wanted to do that. I have to run it as admin because otherwise PunkBuster, the anti-cheating component of it, won’t properly work and I’ll get kicked off of servers. I think COD players have run into this as well. MacOS, on the other hand, doesn’t have that issue. And I don’t suppose *nix does, either. If you want to run something as an admin, you specifically do that with “su”. I guess in Windows, the OS can’t assume you are the one who initiated the “run as administrator” application, rather than some malware.

            I wonder how long it took the malware authors to beat that bit of false security that UAC is supposed to give you. It’s just a “click ok”, not entering a password. It doesn’t really make me feel like I’m proving my identity to the OS to give my authorization, honestly.

            • Logdan
            • 11 years ago

            “I guess in Windows, the OS can’t assume you are the one who initiated the “run as administrator” application, rather than some malware.”

            Correct. This is something that is often overlooked when trying to figure out the UAC the first time. As a User, your account can be comprimised, and the UAC needs to confirm that it’s actually you peforming the action.

            “I wonder how long it took the malware authors to beat that bit of false security that UAC is supposed to give you. It’s just a “click ok”, not entering a password. It doesn’t really make me feel like I’m proving my identity to the OS to give my authorization, honestly.”

            Well, for one, you can’t patch stupid. If a user press “OK” to a malware install, that’s the users fault, and they should be flogged. ๐Ÿ˜›

            Also, if you want, you can make the UAC ask you for a password instead of just asking “OK” or not. The UAC’s process is a protected operating system function, meaning that only Windows can ask you to elevate (obviously this is subject to time/hacking attempts, but this is the intent of the function).

            • d2brothe
            • 11 years ago

            One of the biggest reasons for that is that windows software is not written properly. It does things that it should not be doing (apple software is actually an excellent example of this, almost half a dozen UAC dialogs to install safari, somehow I don’t think this is accidental). This is because for years, windows let you get away with it…now its clamped down and its causing trouble. Same thing as everyone complaining…they don’t like change…well…deal with it…fix your damn programs….stop writing to protected files. If mac or linux programs did this, you’d have the same dialogs…Maybe a few less, I’ll give there are some issues with implementation…but given that you don’t need to type a password each time…I think its probably less hasle.

            • StashTheVampede
            • 11 years ago

            You’re listing a specific issue of the game not really being tested/developed on anything LESS than admin privs. Is this an issue with Vista? Partially. Is this an issue with the app itself? Partially.

            MS went down the road of: we need to start making users aware of what’s going on. Plenty of examples where games/apps were tested against non fully privileged users, but it’s simply time to transition.

            Vista is that transition.

            • Scrotos
            • 11 years ago

            Yeah, I hear ya. I just listed something very specific since I knew if I didn’t, someone would complain that I’m being angsty without giving any concrete examples. ๐Ÿ˜‰

            I like how it sometimes doesn’t need to run as admin, sometimes does. I have the anti-cheat software installed as a service, their suggestion to get around some of these types of permission issues, and it still gives me grief.

            • adisor19
            • 11 years ago

            Not quite. See, OS X does ask your for Admin pass but not for every freakin time i access something in the Control Panel/Sys prefs. Vista just prompts you non stop, and worse: IT blocks access to anything else unless you answer the prompt. OS X just blocks acess to the program in question, not the the WHOLE FREAKIN OS.

            Trust me, those differences are quite obvious. Unless i’m installing a new program, i rarely get the prompt under OS X.

            Adi

            • accord1999
            • 11 years ago

            And that’s what one of the things that makes OSX less secure than Vista.

            • adisor19
            • 11 years ago

            Ya, must be all those viruses on OS X.. Oh wait.

            Adi

            • StashTheVampede
            • 11 years ago

            MS and Apple went down two different paths to notify users of what’s going on.

            UAC is in your face for the SPECIFIC reason that it’s not to be ignored. This irks numerous other Mac users that I know: it’s yet another method that gets your attention, from MS, that many feel is too heavy handed.

            Apple went down a very small path: one dialog box that cover up the rest of the other Windows.

            As a user that has both Macs and PCs, I prefer UAC for the simple reason: it’s 100% guaranteed to gain the foreground attention that something is happening.

            I’m not saying that it was the best thing for MS to do, but it’s a start for developers and end users of the MS products to understand “bad” things can happen if they aren’t careful.

            • Scrotos
            • 11 years ago

            As a user of both OS X and Vista, I disagree. All UAC is doing is to train the users into clicking a dialog box to make things disappear.

            If you’ve ever done a job with technical support, either in-house or external customers, you should know this aspect of human nature. If you haven’t, well, once you train a person that “click this lets you do what you want”, they will be happily installing malware and virii all over the place.

            No? Not going to happen? I’ve seen it in previous jobs with highly-educated “power users”. We removed the ability for users to select “log off” as we wanted them to only shut down or restart their computers when they left them for lunch of whatever. However, we forgot “stand by”. Many of the users thought that was the replacement for “log off” and ended up putting their systems into a low-power state during lunch, which then locked their computers after a certain timeout. Password required to unlock, ok, no big deal. But they left certain in-house applications open which in turn locked certain databases from being used/updated by other users for the duration of their lunch. And power-cycling the system to get the db’s released would generally just corrupt the db’s.

            It’s these stupid little assumptions that people make that can have real-life consequences to business operations and security. I mean, it’s stupid assumptions to an IT pro, but it makes perfect sense to them.

            So training them that “click to make this annoying thing go away and make my program run/install” is definitely not going to help. If it did it every so often, yes, I think it would. But since it happens so often, it will be too common, nothing special. And a nuisance, not a warning.

            My thoughts, at least.

            • Flying Fox
            • 11 years ago

            q[

            • Scrotos
            • 11 years ago

            As an aside, on my Vista system, I got it brand new from Dell. When I started the system up, it led me through the first-time user junk, etc.

            And later on, after I was dorking around with things, I found out that it had made my user an Administrator by default. Yeah, normally I would be going there and upping my rights, but they were already done. Hell, I even used to run as Administrator on my old 2K home system just because I didn’t want to have to deal with rights issues.

            But it looks like either with Vista or with the OEM configurations of Vista, users are set up to be Administrators by default.

            You know what, now that I think about it, I just had to build an XP SP3 system at work using an OEM disc. During the setup, I added a few users and now that I’m thinking about it, all 4 users I added were set to Administrator access by default.

            So I guess it’s not just end-users who are on the whole Administrator track. I didn’t think about it until you mentioned it, but it looks like MS is still pushing that on the users since they probably figured it’d be easier on them. And then they use UAC to limit their Administrator access. It’s just… a messy situation.

            But yeah, MS seems to be setting people as Administrator by default in XP and Vista installs. I would certainly hang my head in shame and admit to being one of those blokes who sets themselves as admin, but looks like the end-users aren’t entirely (or even at all?) to blame with that.

            • adisor19
            • 11 years ago

            Indeed, but between the 2 paths, the OS X one actually lets you use other programs if need be. Vista on the other hand forces you to deal with it on the spot and blocks access to anything else.

            Adi

            • StashTheVampede
            • 11 years ago

            Something important wants your attention. It’s a red light. Do not pass go, do not collect anything, answer the question. Is it annoying? Yup. Does it get the point across? Yup.

            Clearly, it’s not the best way to handle it, but it starts a chain that could make the situation better.

            • A_Pickle
            • 11 years ago

            …and… unlike in OS X (unless I’m mistaken)…

            …I can turn UAC off.

        • ludi
        • 11 years ago

        Unless CS and similar majors have gotten a whole lot smarter in the intervening seven years since I socialized with any, I have no doubt they get along with Vista, and it has nothing to do with the OS. The majority of the computer is a mysterious black box to a CS major, useful if you push the buttons in correct sequence and ocassionally the subject of vague superstitions — akin to how the average person interacts with a kitchen microwave.

      • flip-mode
      • 11 years ago

      Really? I’ve seen several concise explanations. Pay better attention?

        • leor
        • 11 years ago

        one of which is pretty damn simple – performance!

        my 8 core 32gb ram workstation with a 4 drive 15k RAID as the system drive hangs all the time and is just generally sluggish.

        my 2 core 2gb ram auxillary system running xp feels a lot more snappy, and don’t even get me started on my macbook pro.

          • d2brothe
          • 11 years ago

          Umm…if your complaining about that system being sluggish, its probably a good idea to reconsider what you think is sluggish, I doubt its the operating system’s fault…

          • Krogoth
          • 11 years ago

          It seems you a have configuration problem or Vista drivers for SCSI controller are immature. Vista runs at the same speed on my main rig as XP64, and a fresh copy of XP on a separate HDD.

        • d2brothe
        • 11 years ago

        Really, I haven’t seen one either, and if they’re so short and concise…you could reproduce them? no?

      • eitje
      • 11 years ago

      i’ll tell you why i don’t like Vista:

      the explorer. not IE, but the actual file system explorer. it’s a huge pain to use. the columns that it by default elects to display are sometimes ridiculous. the embedded search bar that i cannot remove is silly. the lack of “up folder” buttons means i have to manage their birdseed address bar, and if you’re a dozen folders deep, that thing will sometimes stop displaying the next folder(s) up in the list.

      also, getting to the window that searches active directory used to be much simpler. now, i have to launch an explorer window, navigate to the network, and THEN i get the option to search AD.

      and i’m not a big fan of the indexer, either. i haven’t noticed an appreciable difference in search time using it, but I HAVE noticed that files don’t get found a lot more often when the indexer maybe hasn’t reached a certain spot on the fle system.

      finally, some of the network administration tools from Microsoft don’t work, and there’s no plans to upgrade them. Terminal Services Manager, for example, will crash in Vista. I have to log into either an XP or 2K3 system to be able to manage the connections to another computer.

      edit: oh, and I have to run Visual Studio 2K5 & 2K5 as Administrator to get some of their features to work correctly. Specifically, some debugging things won’t work unless I’m running VS as Admin.

        • Logdan
        • 11 years ago

        “also, getting to the window that searches active directory used to be much simpler. now, i have to launch an explorer window, navigate to the network, and THEN i get the option to search AD.”

        There is an even faster way. Go to Start>Network. Then pick “Search Active Directory” in the action bar.

        “finally, some of the network administration tools from Microsoft don’t work, and there’s no plans to upgrade them. Terminal Services Manager, for example, will crash in Vista. I have to log into either an XP or 2K3 system to be able to manage the connections to another computer.”

        I believe this was replaced by RSAT.

        ยง[< http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=9FF6E897-23CE-4A36-B7FC-D52065DE9960&displaylang=en<]ยง

          • eitje
          • 11 years ago

          “There is an even faster way. Go to Start>Network. Then pick “Search Active Directory” in the action bar.”

          All you did was make navigating to the Network screen faster; there’s still two windows open.

          In XP, I can go to “Start > Find > People”. one window, not two.

          Thanks for the RSAT tip. I wasn’t aware that had been released, so I’ll check it out.

          I gotta say, though – a lot of those tools are pretty major oversights to not have available until after SP1.

        • Scrotos
        • 11 years ago

        I too have noticed that crap with the file explorer.

        Also, why can’t I right-click and have a “search” option like I used to? Why must I navigate INTO the folder and use the search thing in the upper-right of the window?

        And I recall some junk in the upper-left I couldn’t get rid of, either. Don’t know offhand as I’m at work on an XP machine at the moment.

        • blitzy
        • 11 years ago

        gotta agree with you here, the explorer needs some work.. its bareable but pretty crap!

      • DASQ
      • 11 years ago

      Vista never seems to remember that I like to view all my folders save 1 or 2 in “list” format. I cannot, CAN, NOT, get it to apply ‘list’ viewing format to all folders.

      That’s my one real gripe with Vista.

        • Scrotos
        • 11 years ago

        That’s because they changed the “make this view default for all folders” to “make this view default for all folders OF THIS TYPE”.

        So you have to either do some registry hack or what I did, which is to just go through a bunch of folders, change to list, and apply to all of that type. Just over and over again and that gets the majority of the “views”.

        It drove me crazy, too.

      • odizzido
      • 11 years ago

      The video tearing I get alone is enough reason not to use vista. Course, I still do because it was preinstalled on my laptop, but I don’t use my laptop to watch video very much so I can live with it.

      That and the incompatibility I sometimes run into are the reasons I prefer XP.

    • adisor19
    • 11 years ago

    Funny thing is that was my initial reaction to vista as well ! I liked what i saw and thought that the 3D interface was quite nice. But then, after some days of use.. my mind changed drastically. :S

    Adi

      • Scrotos
      • 11 years ago

      I had the same thing. I liked dorking around with it, then I transitioned my main machine to using Vista. Once I tried to get real work done with my old programs and workflow, that’s when I found out it was a pain in the butt. I’m slowly adapting, I guess, but I wish the OS would bend to my will, not the other way around.

      …without editing a bunch of .conf files, you dirty *nix hippies. Thought I’d throw that in there before someone mentioned some flavor of *nix. ๐Ÿ˜‰

        • atryus28
        • 11 years ago

        HAHA I like that and I’m a linux person for the most part. You may not like messing with .conf files and such (which you don’t have to much anymore unless you tweak) but hey, at least it will bend to your will’s content. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • Jigar
    • 11 years ago

    Yeah that’s very true … I also use Vista.. The first thing that i say, when i start any game is, “Oh WoW, Vista sucks” …. /sarcasm…

      • dmitriylm
      • 11 years ago

      Right….way to go on climbing that moron totem poll.

    • Naito
    • 11 years ago

    “Oh wow” on first impressions of Vista are expected. All you see is eye candy after all!

    It’s once you actually are forced to USE it for real work that all the problems crop up, and that’s where the negative image is stemming from.

    No DUH people think it’s nice from a 10 minute test drive. It’s like a movie trailer…..show you all the good stuff, but when you sit in the movie you’ll realize you already saw all the good parts in the trailers and now you have to sit through 3 hours of torturously stupid dialog.

      • deruberhanyok
      • 11 years ago

      If you’re just going to complain about “Vista” and not back it up with anything solid then your post has no merit. I’ve used it occasionally and haven’t had any problems. I plan to buy a copy when I upgrade my system in the next few months.

      You’re not one of those types that actually sit in the theatre for the whole movie if you don’t like it, are you? That way you can keep complaining about it to people?

        • dmjifn
        • 11 years ago

        It’s pretty and performs decently most of the time.
        For me, it’s a death of a thousand pin pricks, not all of which are unique to vista.

        Yesterday’s pin prick:
        I have 3 desktop shortcuts to network folders. If I happen to be dragging an item and mouse over the shortcuts, Vista attempts to resolve the network connection before I can continue mousing. If the target PC is unavailable, it freezes the GUI for 20-30 seconds, and I lose my drag.

        So, my workaround is to move all my desktop shortcuts out of the path of my dragging. IIRC, this “issue” has been around for a long time. It doesn’t scream “sophistication and useability” to me that it still exists in this premium OS. Sounds like a simple thing. Then someone asks me “So why do you jog your pointer around like that?” and I get to say “So I don’t accidentally cross over a network shortcut and freeze up my computer!!!!!!”

          • SpikeMeister
          • 11 years ago

          I hate things like that.

          Something similar is when you have a disc in your drive and you try and open Windows Media Player… a process which would usually be near instant takes around 5 – 10 seconds while WMP waits for your disc to spin up, only to find that it’s something like CoD4 and doesn’t have any bloody music. Grr.

          And why do I still have a Floppy Disk Drive listed in Windows Explorer when I don’t even have one?

        • atryus28
        • 11 years ago

        I have to use vista a lot for testing at work. I need to use it for more than the new glitz and glam and that’s where it starts to be an issue. There are many things that drive myself and the developer nuts, no it has nothing to do with poor coding or laziness, but constantly changing things and places that should be. It’s networking is much slower than XP, I don’t care what synthetic tests show. i had to do actual test with actual data, it’s slower, argue with the clock. I am testing client/server software so networking things are a constant issue. The new scheme of “protection” sucks and only gets in the way. “You know you can turn that off don’t you?” wonderful I can turn off a feature meant to protect people and then make it unprotected. Let’s not ignore the fact not everyone knows or is allowed TO turn it off. This means I have to deal with it constantly, only further aggravating the issue. There are other issues like simply trying to edit a text file and being told (while logged in as an admin) you must be an admin to do this, and no way to use runas either, forcing one to just change the permission on the darn file anyway. Stupid.

        Luckily I only use XP and Vista at work. I can deal with XP, I hate Vista if all you are doing is Web browsing and email and want some fancy effects use a Mac or Linux. I only use Ubuntu at home for my family and the more people see it “just working” (like my grandmothers Epson allinone printer) people like it a lot and really enjoy the eye candy. MS really needs to make a decision and split up and innovate. They are way too big for their own good, of course most of their good stuff is either bought from the outside or stolen so….

        No OS is perfect nor ever will be, but only the monopoly side of MS keeps them in power not because their products are good. It sucks but I can only vote with my $$ and pushing another OS and support for that. If I have to support something then I support linux. I hate apple too, and dislike how OSX actually works, very MS like bleh. Only my 70year Gradnfather has an iMac and I hated getting it all working for him. Bad hack of linux to me and most of it did not just work. ::roll eyes::

          • Scrotos
          • 11 years ago

          Yes, we evaluated Vista at my workplace and we couldn’t use it. We deal with the Federal Reserve and their authentication tokens are not certified to work with Vista. And, hell, our own biometric devices don’t have working client drivers for Vista, either. Oh oh wait I know, someone will pop in and say it’s not Vista’s fault. But you know what, the Fed doesn’t give a rat’s ass whose fault it is and our IT auditors don’t care if it’s not Vista’s fault that we have no more biometric authentication for Vista workstations.

          Ergo, we’re not using Vista. Well, scratch that. We have some laptops for use in an offsite disaster recovery contingency. We HAVE to access the Fed systems with those. The workaround? Install Win2K (which is what we use at work anyway and are only now transitioning to XP on some machines as we buy new ones to replace old ones) in VMWare and use VMWare Player to run the old OS simply to access the Fed.

          I’d have used Microsoft’s VirtualPC, and I wanted to, but the pile of crap didn’t support USB devices and therefore didn’t recognize the USB tokens we have to use to communicate with the Fed. Maybe it does now, but we’ve already got a solution in place.

          Now that I’m thinking about it, either JET or some ODBC-related item or MDAC or something is not going to be ported to Vista (or was it 64-bit Vista, I can’t recall) which would break some of our older in-house applications. We’re moving them to .NET and MSSQL, but it’s slow and it doesn’t mitigate the fact that Vista breaks our stuff right now. Some older MS db interface that MS doesn’t want to port. It’s probably 10 years old at this point, but hey, that’s how many business applications are. Old code that just works–until the OS breaks ’em, I guess.

        • adisor19
        • 11 years ago

        Hell, ya I’ll stay for the whole movie, unless i get my money back !

        Adi

        • Scrotos
        • 11 years ago

        I like your analogy. It’s like there are two movies showing, “XP” and “Vista”. And that guy is sitting in the “Vista” movie and doesn’t like it. However, what’s this? “XP” is no longer showing. So he has no other movie to sit and watch besides “Vista”.

        MS has extended the ability for resellers to keep selling XP for a bit, but soon people who prefer XP over Vista will have no recourse for keeping with what they like. Soon you won’t be able to tell people to just buy XP instead if they don’t like Vista, because MS won’t let people buy it anymore.

        Bummer, eh?

          • deruberhanyok
          • 11 years ago

          Well if you want to continue the metaphor, there are plenty of other indie flicks playing. It just seems like a lot of people don’t have any interest in watching them because they’re not the big summer blockbuster.

        • Naito
        • 11 years ago

        Since you asked, just a couple of quick ones off the top of my head:

        Issue: Media Center Library decides to add folders that were not added to the library on it’s own. Grayed out folder prevents you from removing said folder, cannot rebuild library from any Media Player nor Media Center, force user to delete library files manually in order to force rebuild.

        Issue: Explorer freezes on copying large files, or does not reload properly when quitting from full-screen app, requiring task-manager force quit and reload.

        Issue: Occasionally switches to classic theme after quitting 3D apps. Happens randomly, requires manual switch back to Aero theme.

        Issue: UAC popup windows sometimes take very long time to pop up, causing up to 30second pause before installer will continue. On a Athlon64 X2 with 6GB of RAM and 150GB Raptor system drive, this is unacceptable. Occasionally does not popup at all until selected manually from the taskbar, leaving users to wait and wonder why their installer stalled. UAC: Good idea, horrible implementation.

        Issue: Dell Inspiron laptop: Display resolution will sometimes randomly reset to 1024×768, no external monitors have ever been connected, rebooting will sometimes reset back to proper resolution if not manually changed in Control Panel.

        Issue: Automatic updates occasionally still require manual checking to ensure all updates are installed. Occasional crashes during update installation process don’t help either. If you have a Windows Update server, not as much of an issue, but for managing home systems, requires a sysadmin to log in regularly just to “approve” installing updates. WHY!?

        Issue: Horrifying link structure in user profile directories. Looks like something put together as a late night hack.

        Issue: Command line is getting more and more powerless with each Windows iteration, makes it impossible to write scripts for simple tasks. Wasn’t one of the biggest complaints about Mac OS back Pre-OSX days that it didn’t have a command line, hid too much from the user, wasn’t customizable? Times HAVE changed it seems.

        Issue: Deluge of “information” popup tray balloon messages from various Windows apps (e.g. windows update notification, , not to mention the number of “yes please I really want to do this” warning messages one has to click through in order to get online with IE, (e.g. sending information on search form, choose a search engine, enable phishing filter, allow redirect download from web site etc etc etc). Annoys and alarms users unnecessarily, and conditions them to ignore all future REAL warning messages.

        Need I add more? None of these are things that you would see on an initial impression. Used on a daily basis, and you will find users frustrated over why things changed without them asking for it, programs not running as expected, issues connecting to existing servers that they need to do work with; things that simply SHOULD work, SHOULD not be something that needs to be fiddled with regularly, simply DON’T work as intended. Almost as if Vista was built in a way to allow committees to check off “yes this feature is here”, but nobody actually bothers to see if those features actually WORK.

          • deruberhanyok
          • 11 years ago

          Thank you for backing up your statement. That wasn’t so hard, was it?

      • moshpit
      • 11 years ago

      BS! I use and support it in depth and it may take a little getting used to, but it’s FAR more stable and secure then XP and only a fool with no real experience with it would think otherwise.

      • asdsa
      • 11 years ago

      Very well put.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This