Is Vista crash proof? Nope...

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by The Traveler, Mar 5, 2007.

  1. The Traveler

    The Traveler Guest

    I read that Vista was supposed to be much better at preventing hard
    crashes. Well, read-on...

    a. Burnt a backup of some of my applications to a DVD

    b. Tried to read the DVD

    c. The DVD reader kept on going and going (non-stop)

    d. All desktop applications started to lose their focus (can't close
    them, can't start any, etc.)

    e. Ctrl-Alt-Del failed to bring-up the Program Manager

    f. The screen became a milky while (20% transparent) and nothing
    worked

    g. Popped-out the DVD without any resolution.

    h. I had to reboot the computer!

    Tried this twice in my MadDog 10x drive.

    i. Popped-out the DVD and tried it in my other drive, a SONY DVD
    burner

    j. Problems noted in steps b - h repeated.

    k. After last reboot, I did NOT install the DVD and all ran fine

    l. I checked in the Event Viewer and this is where I saw that the
    problem was caused by bad sectors on the DVD.

    So... I burnt another copy and this time all went well.

    Conclusion --> Based on my (very) subjective tests, if Vista is trying
    to read a bad DVD, it will maintain full focuss and not let you do
    anything else. This is NOT how it worked in XP Pro (sigh)

    Comments?


    My system:
    CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+
    Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-M59SLI-S5 w/nVIDIA nForce 590 SLI
    RAM: 2048 MB (Corsair TWIN2X2048-6400PRO - DDR2-800, PC2-6400)
    BIOS: Award Modular (06/19/06)
    Video: BFG - NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GT OC (w/512 MB DDR3)
    Case: Antec 900-series
    PSU: Thermaltake "Thoughpower" 650W, model W0128RU
    Main HDD: WDC WD740ADFD-00NLR1 "Raptor" (74 GB, 10,000 RPM SATA-II)
    Data HDD: ST3300622AS (300 GB, 7200 RPM, SATA-II)
    O/S: Microsoft Windows Vista Business
    AV: AVG Pro 7.5x
    AS/FW: Microsoft OneCare suite

    ______________________

    The Traveller
    Oceanside, California
     
    The Traveler, Mar 5, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. The Traveler

    Justin Guest

    1. "crash proof" and "better at preventing hard crashes" are two completely
    different things. Which one are you actually addressing?

    MS never claimed Vista was crash proof.

    2. Before addressing whether or not Vista is better at handling crashes you
    first need a machine with nothing but certified drivers. Do you have that?

    However, to address your comment. I have had Vista not able to read
    DVD+-Rs. The reason they could not be read was because they were old and no
    other machine or drive could read them either.

    Vista simply gave up trying to read them and let me continue fine.
     
    Justin, Mar 5, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. The Traveler

    The Traveler Guest

    To add insult to injury, the same problem appeared when a USB HDD
    shutdown occurred due to current draw (had not powered it). Vista did
    not know what to do and even when I told it to restart Explorer, it
    failed. The only way out was a reboot of the system.

    As an FYI, in XP Pro, these types of failures were recoverable. In
    Vista, they seem to be catastrophic (sigh)

    ______________________

    The Traveller
    Oceanside, California
     
    The Traveler, Mar 5, 2007
    #3
  4. The Traveler

    The Traveler Guest

    Crash Proof? I should have stated "more robust than XP Pro". (My
    mistake).

    As an FYI, my DVD issue was caused by a bad bloc on the DVD. However,
    that's not the point.

    My point is that under XP Pro, being unable to read a DVD (or
    completely read it) did not crash XP. Windows Explorer simply
    restarted. In Vista, Windows Explorer fails to start and the only way
    out is to reboot.

    If you read my follow-up posting, you will see that I encountered the
    same problem if my USB drive stops while Windows Explorer is reading
    it. Once again, under XP Pro, this was not a catastrophic failure as
    Windows Explorer simply restarted. In Vista, I need to reboot... which
    is >> not << normal as Vista is supposed to be more robust than XP.

    As for "certified drivers", nope, not all are certified. For example,
    my NVIDIA drivers are still in BETA (nothing else available). If
    certified drivers were available, I would use them. That's another
    disappointment. When XP came out, I had far less problems with
    drivers. This time, we are still waiting for NVIDIA drivers, FW
    software, and other hardware drivers. One has no choice but to use
    what is available (in most cases BETA drivers). Granted, XP supported
    most of the legacy 16-bit drivers, which is not the case for Vista.

    ______________________

    The Traveller
    Oceanside, California
     
    The Traveler, Mar 5, 2007
    #4
  5. The Traveler

    Justin Guest

    Yea, I got that. I don't experience that.
    I read it. Then I plugged in my 360 HD-DVD drive without the power turned
    on. Nothing. I then plugged it in with proper power and it worked fine (as
    usual) then I yanked the power from the drive. Bye bye, drive. No
    problems. That's all I can test myself.

    "all are certified"??? Are or are not? Wait for better drivers then see if
    your problem still exists.
    I believe you. However many many many many other people did not. In this
    case, our roles would be reversed. I had nightmares with XP when it was
    released....until better drivers came out.
     
    Justin, Mar 5, 2007
    #5
  6. Sign... you know full well vista is anything but "better at preventing
    hard crashes", let alone "crash proof", as the simplest of drivers of
    programs installed can cause so much instablity it's like working wit ha
    house of cards. This is from doign a lot of testing mind you, on custom
    build and store bought machines.

    Several television commercials in the states claiemd exactly that.
    Yes that can sometimes make a difference, but even signed ones can bring
    a system ot it's knees.
    Alough the OP distinctly said he didn't have those problems under XP.
    This is a problem thats inherent in Vista and the changes they made that
    breaks the way many programs isntall, espically those centered around
    drivers. Too things are broken, drivers are being rushed out and not
    tested enough, and that just causes more problems.

    If Microsoft just fixed XP and gave the extra stuff as some sort of
    bonus pack, then I think everyone would be happy.
     
    Clenna Lumina, Mar 5, 2007
    #6
  7. The Traveler

    Wayne M. Poe Guest

    In my own experiences, I've found Explorer and IE7 in Vista to be
    incredibly fragile. The slightly program/plugin/whatever it doesn't
    agree with, it starts getting problems or crahes out right. In the case
    of IE 7, I've had to refused to start, over 5 reboots, then on the 6th
    boot, after about 20 minutes, it suddenly started working again. Nothing
    was changed during that time, it was just _completely_ random.
     
    Wayne M. Poe, Mar 5, 2007
    #7
  8. The Traveler

    Justin Guest

    Interesting. You added nothing to the topic.

    BS. Link us. I've seen ALL the MS commercials. As stupid as they are, not
    a single one of them made such a claim. Come on high speed! Send the links
    out way.
     
    Justin, Mar 5, 2007
    #8
  9. The Traveler

    Beck Guest

    It is much better at preventing crashes. I don't think anyone ever said it
    was "crash proof". I have had a number of times when a program has started
    to crash and goes "not responding" only for Vista to recover from it and
    continue the program normally.
     
    Beck, Mar 5, 2007
    #9
  10. The Traveler

    CJM Guest

    Vista *is* more robust than XP. This is not subjective; there are real
    architectural reasons why this is so. If you use x64 it is even moreso,
    because it insists on signed drivers which tend to be much better quality.

    The majority of Vista problems can be placed into two camps: problems with
    drivers and problems with users. If hardware manuafacturers have been slow
    to action, it is not Microsoft's fault - it's not like they've not seen it
    coming. As for users, people don't like change, plus people have their own
    tastes and preferences. All fair enough. Personally, I hate UAC. I wholly
    understand the benefits, but I think it's a cumbersome implementation and I
    hope it gets changed. But that does not make Vista a bad OS.
    That's crap. If you had really done that much testing on different hardware
    you would have identified the common problem areas and would have seen the
    common successes. You have done neither; you sound exactly like every other
    Vista nay-sayer.

    If you'd had any experience of other OSes you would have been able to put
    Vista into a more sensible context. I suspect it took you a while to get to
    grips with XP and you don't want to lose your knowledge and start again. And
    you certainly don't have any experience of the move from 16 to 32bit
    otherwise the Vista situation would be more familiar.

    I realise, of course, that all this is wasted. You are unlikely to become
    any more open-minded or any less dogmatic, but I predict you'll be here in
    3-5yrs time complaining that MS should have persisted with Vista instead of
    releasing Vista+1...etc, etc....
     
    CJM, Mar 5, 2007
    #10
  11. The Traveler

    CJM Guest

    Indeed. That is my experience too.

    I would say that when an application can't be recovered and does bomb-out,
    I'd like to see Vista returning an indication of the error; it's a minor
    PITA to have to fire up the event viewer to find out...
     
    CJM, Mar 5, 2007
    #11
  12. The Traveler

    Beck Guest

    IIRC I have had Vista tell me what was wrong on a couple of occasions,
    following the link they provided, it showed it was down to video drivers.
     
    Beck, Mar 5, 2007
    #12
  13. The Traveler

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Today, Wayne M. Poe made these interesting comments ...
    I am sure, but cannot prove of course, that MS did a very thorough
    job of automated and human testing on Explorer and IE7, both
    integral parts of the O/S, as well as extensive beta testing, so I
    have to wonder how things as obvious as you report could've gotten
    by them.
     
    HEMI-Powered, Mar 5, 2007
    #13
  14. The Traveler

    Scott Guest

    "Slighly program/plugin/whatever"?

    --
    Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com

    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
    NOTICE: In-Newsgroup (and therefore off-topic) comments on my sig will
    be cheerfully ignored, so don't waste our time.
     
    Scott, Mar 5, 2007
    #14
  15. The Traveler

    Scott Guest

    I've never heard of a "crash-proof" OS.

    --
    Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com

    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
    NOTICE: In-Newsgroup (and therefore off-topic) comments on my sig will
    be cheerfully ignored, so don't waste our time.
     
    Scott, Mar 5, 2007
    #15

  16. That's what the Event logs are for. Windows tries to explain why it
    burped or worse. You can "see" by looking at the Event Viewer that can
    be found under Administrative Tools in Control Panel. It uses the same
    keys like Device Manager, Red for errors, yellow for warnings, plus
    informational, plus a new category critical.
     
    Adam Albright, Mar 5, 2007
    #16
  17. You must have a SPECIAL TV that picks up channels nobody else sees.

    <giggle>
     
    Adam Albright, Mar 5, 2007
    #17
  18. Really?
    I have not seen any such commercial stating vista is "crash proof".
    I also have not seen any documentation anywhere that says as much,
    other than your post that is.

    My guess is you misunderstood something you saw on a commercial and
    assumed from there.

    --
    Jupiter Jones [MVP]
    http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
    http://www.dts-l.org


    Snipped
    Snipped some more
     
    Jupiter Jones [MVP], Mar 5, 2007
    #18
  19. Ok, wording wise, not exactly, but there are several claims that is the
    "most stable Windows" and such, which clearly imply that, if it's more
    stable then XP, then it wont crash hardly at all. Nothing could be
    furthur from the truth. Its all big-media spin and all you who replied
    to my post know it. Who cares how exactly it's worded if their meaning
    is clear and amounts to untruthfulness.
     
    Clenna Lumina, Mar 6, 2007
    #19
  20. The Traveler

    Justin Guest

    It is the most stable. What's your point?
    Who told you this garbage?
    We know what? That our Vista installation work great? Yup!
    ??? Are you serious? Words have meanings! You have to use the right words.
    What are you? 10?
     
    Justin, Mar 6, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.