Why does it seem worse with Vista?

Hi,

I'm a geezer who remember the noise around tons of Microsoft releases
(3.1, 95, Me, 2000, XP and Vista). I think OS's are fun so I just
can't help myself, I just have to check 'em out early. I did the same
thing with Vista and found a rock solid improved foundation with a lot
fluff on top which looks good but doesn't always work well. I have
taken care of those things and now Vista is working well for me. I
sometimes wonder if some of this has to do with my choice of hardware?
I have been purchasing computers from the same manufacturer forever
and have had very little hardware related trouble. The little I have
had has been fixed in a timely efficient manner. Maybe all this noise
around major OS updates also has to do with that the new OS versions
have to run on hardware that may not have been perfect in the first
place?

Anyhow, Vista has caused more noise than any of the previous Windows
updates I can remember. And what's new is that it doesn't stop. Now
nine months after it was thrown at us people haven't stopped griping
about it. Very recently I found this piece on Slahsdot:

http://slashdot.org/articles/07/08/18/1512243.shtml

Pretty heavy hitting criticism from a pretty prominent member of the
press! And again, I do not understand what the problem really is. I
can understand that people who doesn't know much about computers can
find UAC quite annoying. But on the other hand, if you are new to
computers you may think UAC is the way it's supposed to be, just like
Wndows users think viruses is a natural part of an OS's existence
somewhat like the flu and other infections are a part of our lives.
But when people who has been around computers and OS's for years are
still griping after 9 months it's pretty bad. I remember missing
Windows 2000 when I first got XP, but after about three months my
notes shows me that I was at happy with the upgrade. One the Linux
distro's I use it normally takes a little less time for me to feel at
home than it does on Windows, but that's probably because the major
upgrades aren't as far apart.

Oh well, I am so glad I Vista is working for me because it's the best
looking Windows ever! No one can argue that. And they made it look
great without "OSXifying" it too much. It has an identity of it's
own.

If I now just cold get my "Up" button back in Windows Explorer, and
people wold stop telling me I do not need it I would be perfectly
happy!

........Okay, do not *need* that "up" button, but i *want* it! I guess
I'm pretty lucky since that's my biggest Vista problem right now? Oh,
not entirely true: There's a utility I have been using so much that
it's become a part of all my Windows machines regardless. It's called
"Unlocker" and takes care of all those files that for some reason or
another is locked when you try to delete them. This has been a problem
in Windows since the beginning of time but "Unlocker" deals with it
wonderfully, but is not available on Vista yet (you can tweak it to
somewhat work on Vista by messing with UAC...again!).

Okay, so please try and explain to me what's so bad about this Windows
upgrade, because I do not get it. I just don't.


//ceed

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:35:22 -0700, ceed <>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I'm a geezer who remember the noise around tons of Microsoft releases
>(3.1, 95, Me, 2000, XP and Vista). I think OS's are fun so I just
>can't help myself, I just have to check 'em out early. I did the same
>thing with Vista and found a rock solid improved foundation with a lot
>fluff on top which looks good but doesn't always work well. I have
>taken care of those things and now Vista is working well for me. I
>sometimes wonder if some of this has to do with my choice of hardware?
>I have been purchasing computers from the same manufacturer forever
>and have had very little hardware related trouble. The little I have
>had has been fixed in a timely efficient manner. Maybe all this noise
>around major OS updates also has to do with that the new OS versions
>have to run on hardware that may not have been perfect in the first
>place?
>
>Anyhow, Vista has caused more noise than any of the previous Windows
>updates I can remember. And what's new is that it doesn't stop. Now
>nine months after it was thrown at us people haven't stopped griping
>about it. Very recently I found this piece on Slahsdot:
>
>http://slashdot.org/articles/07/08/18/1512243.shtml
>
>Pretty heavy hitting criticism from a pretty prominent member of the
>press! And again, I do not understand what the problem really is. I
>can understand that people who doesn't know much about computers can
>find UAC quite annoying. But on the other hand, if you are new to
>computers you may think UAC is the way it's supposed to be, just like
>Wndows users think viruses is a natural part of an OS's existence
>somewhat like the flu and other infections are a part of our lives.
>But when people who has been around computers and OS's for years are
>still griping after 9 months it's pretty bad. I remember missing
>Windows 2000 when I first got XP, but after about three months my
>notes shows me that I was at happy with the upgrade. One the Linux
>distro's I use it normally takes a little less time for me to feel at
>home than it does on Windows, but that's probably because the major
>upgrades aren't as far apart.
>
>Oh well, I am so glad I Vista is working for me because it's the best
>looking Windows ever! No one can argue that. And they made it look
>great without "OSXifying" it too much. It has an identity of it's
>own.
>
>If I now just cold get my "Up" button back in Windows Explorer, and
>people wold stop telling me I do not need it I would be perfectly
>happy!
>
>.......Okay, do not *need* that "up" button, but i *want* it! I guess
>I'm pretty lucky since that's my biggest Vista problem right now? Oh,
>not entirely true: There's a utility I have been using so much that
>it's become a part of all my Windows machines regardless. It's called
>"Unlocker" and takes care of all those files that for some reason or
>another is locked when you try to delete them. This has been a problem
>in Windows since the beginning of time but "Unlocker" deals with it
>wonderfully, but is not available on Vista yet (you can tweak it to
>somewhat work on Vista by messing with UAC...again!).
>
>Okay, so please try and explain to me what's so bad about this Windows
>upgrade, because I do not get it. I just don't.
>
>
>//ceed

What's wrong with Vista?

The same thing that's been wrong with every release of Windows going
back to the beginning over twenty years ago. It gets pushed out the
door not ready, not fully tested with Microsoft expecting the public
at large to be their unpaid beta testers so the boys of Redmond can
put together SP1 and nine months or so after the initial release make
the second release something closer to what the original release
should have been.

The public has been conditioned to accept this is normal. Damn are
people ever stupid!

Controversy creates increased readship which translates
into increasing advertizing revenues. Read the following
which illustrates how a Windows Vista critic's published
article was completely debunked with real world testing.

Gutmann: "I'm going to ignore" questions about Vista FUD
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"ceed" wrote:

Hi,

I'm a geezer who remember the noise around tons of Microsoft releases
(3.1, 95, Me, 2000, XP and Vista). I think OS's are fun so I just
can't help myself, I just have to check 'em out early. I did the same
thing with Vista and found a rock solid improved foundation with a lot
fluff on top which looks good but doesn't always work well. I have
taken care of those things and now Vista is working well for me. I
sometimes wonder if some of this has to do with my choice of hardware?
I have been purchasing computers from the same manufacturer forever
and have had very little hardware related trouble. The little I have
had has been fixed in a timely efficient manner. Maybe all this noise
around major OS updates also has to do with that the new OS versions
have to run on hardware that may not have been perfect in the first
place?

Anyhow, Vista has caused more noise than any of the previous Windows
updates I can remember. And what's new is that it doesn't stop. Now
nine months after it was thrown at us people haven't stopped griping
about it. Very recently I found this piece on Slahsdot:

http://slashdot.org/articles/07/08/18/1512243.shtml

Pretty heavy hitting criticism from a pretty prominent member of the
press! And again, I do not understand what the problem really is. I
can understand that people who doesn't know much about computers can
find UAC quite annoying. But on the other hand, if you are new to
computers you may think UAC is the way it's supposed to be, just like
Wndows users think viruses is a natural part of an OS's existence
somewhat like the flu and other infections are a part of our lives.
But when people who has been around computers and OS's for years are
still griping after 9 months it's pretty bad. I remember missing
Windows 2000 when I first got XP, but after about three months my
notes shows me that I was at happy with the upgrade. One the Linux
distro's I use it normally takes a little less time for me to feel at
home than it does on Windows, but that's probably because the major
upgrades aren't as far apart.

Oh well, I am so glad I Vista is working for me because it's the best
looking Windows ever! No one can argue that. And they made it look
great without "OSXifying" it too much. It has an identity of it's
own.

If I now just cold get my "Up" button back in Windows Explorer, and
people wold stop telling me I do not need it I would be perfectly
happy!

........Okay, do not *need* that "up" button, but i *want* it! I guess
I'm pretty lucky since that's my biggest Vista problem right now? Oh,
not entirely true: There's a utility I have been using so much that
it's become a part of all my Windows machines regardless. It's called
"Unlocker" and takes care of all those files that for some reason or
another is locked when you try to delete them. This has been a problem
in Windows since the beginning of time but "Unlocker" deals with it
wonderfully, but is not available on Vista yet (you can tweak it to
somewhat work on Vista by messing with UAC...again!).

Okay, so please try and explain to me what's so bad about this Windows
upgrade, because I do not get it. I just don't.


//ceed

ceed <> wrote in news:1187534122.887142.163960@
50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

> And they made it look
> great without "OSXifying" it too much.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MDNuq94Zg_8 (yes...sarcastic)


> It has an identity of it's own.

So do Charles Manson, Adolph Hiter, and George Bush.

There's nothing wrong with Vista that isn't inherently wrong with computers,
which is a plethora of hardware configurations combined with multitudes of
individuals operating or misoperating the system. No OS will make everyone
happy. And no OS manufacturer can predict every combination of programs,
toolbars, drivers, hardware, etc... that individuals will install and
misconfigure.
For me, Vista has been flawless.
For others, not so.

"ceed" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I'm a geezer who remember the noise around tons of Microsoft releases
> (3.1, 95, Me, 2000, XP and Vista). I think OS's are fun so I just
> can't help myself, I just have to check 'em out early. I did the same
> thing with Vista and found a rock solid improved foundation with a lot
> fluff on top which looks good but doesn't always work well. I have
> taken care of those things and now Vista is working well for me. I
> sometimes wonder if some of this has to do with my choice of hardware?
> I have been purchasing computers from the same manufacturer forever
> and have had very little hardware related trouble. The little I have
> had has been fixed in a timely efficient manner. Maybe all this noise
> around major OS updates also has to do with that the new OS versions
> have to run on hardware that may not have been perfect in the first
> place?
>
> Anyhow, Vista has caused more noise than any of the previous Windows
> updates I can remember. And what's new is that it doesn't stop. Now
> nine months after it was thrown at us people haven't stopped griping
> about it. Very recently I found this piece on Slahsdot:
>
> http://slashdot.org/articles/07/08/18/1512243.shtml
>
> Pretty heavy hitting criticism from a pretty prominent member of the
> press! And again, I do not understand what the problem really is. I
> can understand that people who doesn't know much about computers can
> find UAC quite annoying. But on the other hand, if you are new to
> computers you may think UAC is the way it's supposed to be, just like
> Wndows users think viruses is a natural part of an OS's existence
> somewhat like the flu and other infections are a part of our lives.
> But when people who has been around computers and OS's for years are
> still griping after 9 months it's pretty bad. I remember missing
> Windows 2000 when I first got XP, but after about three months my
> notes shows me that I was at happy with the upgrade. One the Linux
> distro's I use it normally takes a little less time for me to feel at
> home than it does on Windows, but that's probably because the major
> upgrades aren't as far apart.
>
> Oh well, I am so glad I Vista is working for me because it's the best
> looking Windows ever! No one can argue that. And they made it look
> great without "OSXifying" it too much. It has an identity of it's
> own.
>
> If I now just cold get my "Up" button back in Windows Explorer, and
> people wold stop telling me I do not need it I would be perfectly
> happy!
>
> .......Okay, do not *need* that "up" button, but i *want* it! I guess
> I'm pretty lucky since that's my biggest Vista problem right now? Oh,
> not entirely true: There's a utility I have been using so much that
> it's become a part of all my Windows machines regardless. It's called
> "Unlocker" and takes care of all those files that for some reason or
> another is locked when you try to delete them. This has been a problem
> in Windows since the beginning of time but "Unlocker" deals with it
> wonderfully, but is not available on Vista yet (you can tweak it to
> somewhat work on Vista by messing with UAC...again!).
>
> Okay, so please try and explain to me what's so bad about this Windows
> upgrade, because I do not get it. I just don't.
>
>
> //ceed
>

If you were not on the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota then what's the
big deal?
Vista is time by your wristwatch slower for all disk access operations than
XP on the same machine.
The UAC does not add to security and slows disk operations further.
The structure of the UAC makes a hash of the supposed Administrator/user
privilege structure of Vista.
Streaming multimedia is problematic for many users, even with the WMP.
Networking with XP units, especially wireless, is often impossible.
Incompatibility with many programs, especially multimedia and CD/authoring.
Many Vista drivers are not as functional as XP equivalents. Some work on
some Vista machines but not all and there is little manufacturer interest in
resolving problems.
Vista is too slow for many hi end games, particularly an issue as DX10 is
Vista only.
Visa has an unstable color management structure: the frigging UAC unloads
color management info from the video driver, making Vista unreliable for
high end graphics.
Shall I go on?

ceed wrote:
>snip<
> .......Okay, do not *need* that "up" button, but i *want* it! I guess
> I'm pretty lucky since that's my biggest Vista problem right now? Oh,
> not entirely true: There's a utility I have been using so much that
> it's become a part of all my Windows machines regardless. It's called
> "Unlocker" and takes care of all those files that for some reason or
> another is locked when you try to delete them. This has been a problem
> in Windows since the beginning of time but "Unlocker" deals with it
> wonderfully, but is not available on Vista yet (you can tweak it to
> somewhat work on Vista by messing with UAC...again!).
>snip<
===============================
Are you using the current version 1.8.5
of Unlocker? It's compatible with Vista:

Unlocker
http://ccollomb.free.fr/unlocker/

And...just wondering...have you considered
disabling UAC?

--

John Inzer
MS Picture It! -
Digital Image MVP

Digital Image
Highlights and FAQs
http://tinyurl.com/aczzp

Notice
This is not tech support
I am a volunteer

Solutions that work for
me may not work for you

Proceed at your own risk

MS has always needed early adopters to work the bugs out of new stuff.
That helps them to move things out of alpha stage into beta territory
where more people will be fooled into trusting it.

This time they just messed up more than normal and put out pre-pre-alpha
to make their loyal customers to iron out the nasties. It only took them 6
years to do it, too. The thing they didn't bank on was their customers
aren't willing to spend even more money and time on poorer products than
they became accustomed to being screwed with before.

Dell started selling XP machines again. I don't know the specifics about
who can buy them and on which models. But their business customers won't
buy Vista.

Acer's CEO (the number 4 PC maker) called Vista a "disappointment" to the
industry and to customers. He probably chose that word only because
stronger language would have gotten him sued.

Vista is not a disappointment. It's far, far worse. I'd say it's a joke,
but jokes usually have punchlines.

The fact that it seemingly works for a handful of people is irrelevant.
Anything can be made to work for the odd person here or there. Getting it
to work for average users is the key. You can't do that if everybody is
forced to buy all new hardware just to get it to work. Users wanting to
upgrade to get features sure aren't seeing any and they're losing a lot in
the process: machines not hefty enough (not even many bought last years),
lack of drivers, software that doesn't work, software that worked and
stopped working for no apparent reason, nothing new on the low-end product
and the high-end product priced out of range of a lot of people, and so
on.

Just look at any Vista group on usenet and compare it to any XP group of a
similar category. Vista has a tiny user base compared to XP. But the
numbers of postings to the Vista groups is a mountain to XP's molehill.

Vista is making ME look pretty stable and satisfying right about now. You
remember ME, right? The OS that was orphaned almost as soon as it was put
on the streets because it was so awful MS didn't even want to deal with
it?

I moved away from Vista because it was awful. I made the mistake of
upgrading over XP. That was a sorry mistake on my part, one that will
never be repeated. I won't go back. XP has a limited support cycle itself.
So I'm in the process of moving everything to linux. Billy and Stevie can
have the pile of manure they've turned Windows into!

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:35:22 -0700, ceed wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm a geezer who remember the noise around tons of Microsoft releases
> (3.1, 95, Me, 2000, XP and Vista). I think OS's are fun so I just can't
> help myself, I just have to check 'em out early. I did the same thing
> with Vista and found a rock solid improved foundation with a lot fluff
> on top which looks good but doesn't always work well. I have taken care
> of those things and now Vista is working well for me. I sometimes wonder
> if some of this has to do with my choice of hardware? I have been
> purchasing computers from the same manufacturer forever and have had
> very little hardware related trouble. The little I have had has been
> fixed in a timely efficient manner. Maybe all this noise around major
> OS updates also has to do with that the new OS versions have to run on
> hardware that may not have been perfect in the first place?
>
> Anyhow, Vista has caused more noise than any of the previous Windows
> updates I can remember. And what's new is that it doesn't stop. Now nine
> months after it was thrown at us people haven't stopped griping about
> it. Very recently I found this piece on Slahsdot:
>
> http://slashdot.org/articles/07/08/18/1512243.shtml
>
> Pretty heavy hitting criticism from a pretty prominent member of the
> press! And again, I do not understand what the problem really is. I can
> understand that people who doesn't know much about computers can find
> UAC quite annoying. But on the other hand, if you are new to computers
> you may think UAC is the way it's supposed to be, just like Wndows users
> think viruses is a natural part of an OS's existence somewhat like the
> flu and other infections are a part of our lives. But when people who
> has been around computers and OS's for years are still griping after 9
> months it's pretty bad. I remember missing Windows 2000 when I first got
> XP, but after about three months my notes shows me that I was at happy
> with the upgrade. One the Linux distro's I use it normally takes a
> little less time for me to feel at home than it does on Windows, but
> that's probably because the major upgrades aren't as far apart.
>
> Oh well, I am so glad I Vista is working for me because it's the best
> looking Windows ever! No one can argue that. And they made it look great
> without "OSXifying" it too much. It has an identity of it's own.
>
> If I now just cold get my "Up" button back in Windows Explorer, and
> people wold stop telling me I do not need it I would be perfectly happy!
>
> .......Okay, do not *need* that "up" button, but i *want* it! I guess
> I'm pretty lucky since that's my biggest Vista problem right now? Oh,
> not entirely true: There's a utility I have been using so much that it's
> become a part of all my Windows machines regardless. It's called
> "Unlocker" and takes care of all those files that for some reason or
> another is locked when you try to delete them. This has been a problem
> in Windows since the beginning of time but "Unlocker" deals with it
> wonderfully, but is not available on Vista yet (you can tweak it to
> somewhat work on Vista by messing with UAC...again!).
>
> Okay, so please try and explain to me what's so bad about this Windows
> upgrade, because I do not get it. I just don't.
>
>
> //ceed

"ceed" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> Pretty heavy hitting criticism from a pretty prominent member of the
> press!

Slashdot are known Microsoft haters so the source is not credible. They are
not objective when it comes to Microsoft.

Crazy Noddy wrote:

> "ceed" <> wrote in message
> news: ups.com...
> > Pretty heavy hitting criticism from a pretty prominent member of the
> > press!
>
> Slashdot are known Microsoft haters so the source is not credible.
> They are not objective when it comes to Microsoft.

Slashdot may be MS haters, but this is not originally from them. Their
haterd just inpired them to feature it..

Look here:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2171472,00.asp

These guys are not MS haters as far as I know.

--
//ceed