Mystery of the Vista-alike Windows 7 build finally solved
By Paul Miller 
posted February 6th 2008 6:12AM
posted February 6th 2008 6:12AM
posted February 6th 2008 6:12AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
It's those same people who can't tell a mouse from a modem, that SWEAR vista is horrible.
They don't know why. They want me to show them how to make it look like XP, but when I ask what they don't like about Vista, they don't really have an answer. I change the start menu to classic, then the theme to Windows classic, and usually they're happy with that.
The general masses get all this from fox/yahoo news, or their cousin Joe who works in electronics at Best Buy. They hear, 'Vista is horrible!' and spout it off so they can seem like they're tech savy.
Oye.
I've been equipped with Vista Ultimate X64 since July, and it's been solid. The only issues I've had were with a few small programs (such as CoreTemp) that had unsigned drivers and wouldn't load. A quick google search solved that. Can't say I'm looking back.
I'm a Mac person myself (in fact, my Windows desktop is still running XP since I haven't had the money to upgrade yet...) and while I still _greatly_ prefer the OS X to any other operating system (both Windows and Linux), I have to admit that for the average Joe, Windows Vista is a big improvement. Unfortunately, they don't understand that certain things are now locked down for their protection. For me, XP is not too bad, as I know how to correctly set up security systems and such, but for the average "idiot," XP is actually kind of dangerous.
Well, I manage an IT department that designs software and I can tell you why I hate Vista. First, it has nothing to do with speed. I understand that as computers get faster you can start moving things out of the kernel (such as video drivers) to make the system more stable at the cost of speed. You can also spend more cpu time preventing things like deadlocks. This is fine by me and I was very excited for Vista before it arrived. I'm more concerned about better memory management than OS footprint anyway. My issue with it, is with all the fuss about stability I received far more blue screens than I ever had with XP. In fact, I can't remember the last blue screen I got in xp and my work computer tends to stay on for weeks at a time. Vista was blue screening from things like playing quicktime videos and burning DVDs. I don't mind if somebody's software crashes but the OS should be better than to crash with it. You can't really blame somebody else's software for a blue screen if you're protecting the kernel properly. Afterall, isn't vista suppose to be better than xp?
I also hate how every admin function in vista takes 2 to 3 more clicks to get at. In XP I go to the control panel and then I get into the section that I need to be in. In Vista, I go to the control panel, go to where I want, answer a question on what I want to do, approve the action, and then I'm there. Heck, every one of the "what do you want to do?" questions tends to take you to the same place so its very annoying that there is even that extra step. Vista just gets in my way too much! I do lots of user support at my job and hate when we have a vista machine come in. I also design UIs for a living and vista's ui is a downgrade from xp. My mac at home has user protection built in but it only comes up when its really needed. I've never felt the need to turn it off on linux or a mac, but I do on Vista.
Finally, I've always been an early adopter of each new version of Windows. I loved 95 compared to 3.1, 98 when it came out was a lot better than 95, I loved 2000, and I loved XP (and no, I didn't have to wait till sp1 to appreciate xp). They all had slight adjustments but within a month of using I didn't want to go back. I used Vista for a year and going back to XP was such a relief. I'll give it a try again after SP1. I'm sure stability is better but there is still the issue with the UI. I'm also bugged that they fix things that aren't broken. The calculator, backup utility, and image viewer are all inferior in Vista compared to their XP counterparts.
So yes, some people that know what they're talking about do hate Vista for a good reason.
My 2 cents, Windows is king for a lot of reasons such as marketing, being in bed with OEMs, having the lions share of applications/games written for it, the list goes on. The fact is that windows is the easiest OS to use. Installing applications on Linux is not as simple as double clicking an exe. In fact it can be a nightmare of dependancies, also keeping your apps working with the constant kernel and library updates is a pain as well. Mac suffers from high cost, and the lack of applications that mainstream users want to use. Personally I am waiting for the hardware based hypervisors, running virtual appliances. Either way, all I hope is that they make a lean and mean version for us who like using best in breed applications and not the bloatware suites they have been pre-installing.
"Linux is not as simple as double clicking an exe. In fact it can be a nightmare of dependancies, also keeping your apps working with the constant kernel and library updates is a pain as well."
Ah, lie to the folks to try to push your opinion across as some kind of valid ramble....
Linux is as easy as putting in a CD and hitting install. Just like Windows (except it will work with our other operating systems instead of wiping them out.)
And as far as updates and dependency management... You don't have to worry about that crap either. There are several programs that manage all that for you. Ubuntu for instance has Aptitude which will check dependencies, download, and install them all at the click of the mouse. I don't know what world your living in, but it seems to be about 5 years behind the rest of the world.
Andir is right on the money. I haven't had a dependency issue in years using Fedora. Plus as an added bonus for a centralized repository system, all your software is automatically updated through on central system. This ensures compatibility between programs, and that everything is always up-to-date without having update tracking performed independently for every piece of software you have (I count no fewer than 8 different update programs on my Vista-operated laptop).
Until I can do any and all of my 3rd party software on Linux without having to type out commands in terminal, then it will fail as an everyman's OS.
As long as I have to manually configure resolutions that my computer can use (along with refresh rates) via a text editor or a 20 step configuration utility, it will fail.
It's the little things that make Windows so nice to use, double click installs, automatic driver configuration, hardware detection that actually means something.
I love the idea of Linux, and it's a fun toy but that's it, because when it comes to user friendliness there are just things that MS does better.
@Nathan: have you used Ubuntu or any of the newest distros? The resolution is set from an applet in the system menu (no file editing required), read my above statements about package utilities (like Aptitude) ... no command line installs (unless the creator of the application was too lazy to package it for you, then you can't really blame Linux). And Linux has hardware detection "that means something" (whatever that means...) You can view a list of the devices just like you can in Windows, there are applets installed with most distributions that will detect and install drivers for these devices and 99% of the time you don't even have to worry about it. (Unlike windows were you still have to "click next" to install hardware.) Now, the most recent issue of wireless support I'll admit is a bit hairy, and it you buy el-cheapo off brand hardware that only kicks out Windows devices using obscure chipsets, you might still have an issue. I'll almost guarantee that if your having the issue, someone else is (and they likely informed the maintainers about it instead of throwing their hands in the air and quitting) and it will likely be fixed within weeks or days. Which is a hell of a lot faster than waiting for a service pack.
If you need to hear why Vista sucks, here ya go. First off my brand new centrino duo laptop runs slower than my single core 4 year old one (yes i have it set to max performance i.e. no aerogloss shit). Second Deleting files often tells me that I don't have permission even though I am the administrator. Third Basic file operations are slow, especially if media player is running due to MS deciding that prevention of skipping music is more important than my ability to do work. UAC screws up a lot of programs that just cant handle being redirected. I have to open a command prompt as administrator when I am logged on as him! Should I go on? I have to use vmware with an install of win2k just to tell if it's Vista when I can't do something over the network (like make a static arp entry, just try it).
IF I am not mistaken doesnt linux require you to do the same type of things? PLus on your core duo laptop do you have all the latest drivers from intel themselves (most manufactures like hp and dell do not have the latest drivers). HAve you downloaded all the fixes? Some of the vista fixes that are huge improvements are not on windows update? I have a pentium m 1.5ghz laptop which vista is faster on then xp. and I have a core 2 duo laptop with vista that is really fast also.
"Deleting files often tells me that I don't have permission even though I am the administrator"
User Account Control... you can disable it, you know?
"Basic file operations are slow"
That is a known issue which is addressed in FP1.
"especially if media player is running due to MS deciding that prevention of skipping music is more important than my ability to do work"
This shouldn't be an issue at all... you must have something else going on.
"UAC screws up a lot of programs that just cant handle being redirected. I have to open a command prompt as administrator when I am logged on as him"
Let's get this straight... UAC isn't screwing it up, it's the application screwing it up due to being written to REQUIRE administrator access. By prompting you to log in it removes the ability for applications to execute administrative tasks without you knowing. And you hate this why?
"I have to use vmware with an install of win2k just to tell if it's Vista when I can't do something over the network (like make a static arp entry, just try it)."
Why don't you pick up a user manual... It would seem to me if you are setting up ARP tables you should be a power user, but your rant makes you sound like a tool. You are misinformed and have no clue what you are talking about.
Let me tell you why XP sucks...
1. No network presence control. What do I mean by this? When I take my laptop to work, my home, a friends home, a coffee shop or anywhere else and connect over WiFi I get prompted the first time with the ability to turn on and off some permissions such as public shares, network discovery and a number of other things. When I set them they are remembered for that location. So, at home I have network shares on and at work I have them off. Get the point?
2. It's ugly. Windows Vista has given a little more style to the OS. Yeah, it's a little overhead, but come on... I have more than enough RAM and CPU power.
3. Administrator rights for all!!! User Account Control in Vista throttles down the rights that the every day users need and give less control to third party applications to make changes that could be devastating. Yes, this doesn't help power users, but that's why it can be disabled.
4. Same ole, Same ole. You have to have change. Would you like to drive around your 1985 Chevette forever? You need to trade up.
I could keep going on but I just don't have the time. If you don't want to upgrade then don't...
The only thing I have to say about Windows 7 is I hope they take some points from Mac and make it even more appealing on the interface side. I am a hardcore Windows fan, but the one thing I can say about Mac is they manage to have a functional system that you enjoy using.
Hey Dumb Ass Don (DAD for short), if you knew a little more about Windows you might be able to sound intelligent. Mistreating people on forums is not only bad taste; it shows that you are a lame d1ck petty bully who didn't get enough love as a child (or an adult). So here is my response to your ignorance.
"Deleting files often tells me that I don't have permission even though I am the administrator"
DAD= “User Account Control... you can disable it, you know?”
Of course, but you at least did get it right stating why would you want to.
"Basic file operations are slow"
DAD= “That is a known issue which is addressed in FP1.”
FP1 is not a service pack and will require un-installation prior to installing SP1, besides only SOME people had noticed improvements.
"especially if media player is running due to MS deciding that prevention of skipping music is more important than my ability to do work"
DAD= “This shouldn't be an issue at all... you must have something else going on.”
If you actually did any reading about why file operations are slow you might know something about this issue.
"UAC screws up a lot of programs that just cant handle being redirected. I have to open a command prompt as administrator when I am logged on as him"
DAD= “Let's get this straight... UAC isn't screwing it up, it's the application screwing it up due to being written to REQUIRE administrator access. By prompting you to log in it removes the ability for applications to execute administrative tasks without you knowing. And you hate this why?”
With UAC turned on a function called file system and registry namespace virtualization. Generally it actually fixes poorly written applications that under XP would not be allowed to run due to the locations they tried to modify files in. However this same function can BREAK applications read KB article 927387. What it does is redirects changes applications make to the file system and registry to your profile in what is called the Virtual Store, this change causes whacky application behavior and is the reason for considerable application compatibility issues with Vista.
"I have to use VMware with an install of win2k just to tell if it's Vista when I can't do something over the network (like make a static arp entry, just try it)."
DAD= “Why don't you pick up a user manual... It would seem to me if you are setting up ARP tables you should be a power user, but your rant makes you sound like a tool. You are misinformed and have no clue what you are talking about.”
Do you even know what ARP is? Like I said I was logged in as an administrator Dumb Ass.
I would second whoever said above that there is too much choice regarding Linux. Why don't people quit fighting about which is better, GNOME or KDE, and team up? Both have their merits, and if they worked together it is apparent to me that they could work towards making the OS better, more people may want to use it. I think people want to have to not make 10,000 choices for technology that they don't completely understand.
I vote for standardization!
Cheers,
Turbo
Linux is the most standard OS in the world. The reson there are KDE and Gnome is that they both strive to do different things. If you want a minimal interface like Windows/OSX, choose Gnome. If you want to customize the shape/size/color/shadow/highlight/glint angle/smell of your entire interface... choose KDE.
To Linux boy Andir3.0 your comments are ridiculous Obviously any modern OS will install with no hassle (even Linux did back in the late 90's). But installing applications that didn't come on the CD can be a pain in the ass.( i.e. ./make ) I am not a nube so don't treat me like one. Personally I love KDE, I spent about a year managing an enterprise windows environment with Open Suse. My experience with running Outlook with Crossover office was almost unbearable, never mind the fact that I had to use VMware and XP for the applications that do not work with Wine/Crossover/etc, which broke every time yast installed a kernel update. That always seemed to happen right when I actually needed it to work, and required I download some patch a guy in Czechoslovakia writes. The fact is that Linux is not friendly enough for the mainstream, as people will want to do things like install applications that are not pre-packaged into the disro, or install new hardware that no one took the time to write a Linux driver for.
You know, the funny thing about Aptitude is that is doesn't use the CD to get new files. It downloads them from a server that is updated nearly the day after files are released. The nice thing about this is that you don't have to worry about compatibility like you keep saying. Now, I don't know who packaged the application you're trying to install, but they did it wrong. It would be the same as someone screwing up the installation script in Windows as well and just handing you an executable that relied on a DLL that you didn't have. You can't blame Linux for that. You can blame whoever gave you the application without a package file like DEB or RPMs, but if your talking about compiling source (and you are, I assume, because you were talking about Make) then again, your misdirecting your anger. (You seem to have a lot of it as you resorted to calling me a "fanboy" pretty quick!) You can't blame Linux for that. You can only blame the person you got your files from for not compiling and packaging the application. So step up to the modern age of Linux and get yourself a package system like Aptitude, Deb, ebuild/emerge, or something along those lines instead of doing it the hard way. (FYI, those are kind of like Install Shield, or Windows Installer in case you couldn't figure it out with your infinite operating system wisdom and experience.)
Jorvay, your right CSV and subversion work great once you figure out how to get them working. I am not trying to bash Linux, in fact I wish it were more usable. But the underlying theme her is that with the user/coder community fractured into fedora,FreeBSD,Suse,Mandrake,GNOME,KDE,etc. They will always be behind a profit driven focused corporation. They can't even standardize the file system structure between distrobutions.
"They can't even standardize the file system structure between distrobutions."
Why does this matter? It's a file system. It stores your files, it does it well. Some are better in certain circumstances than others. For the common user, most distributions default to EXT2 or 3. Why does one computer have to have the same File system as it's neighbor down the hall? It's not like your going to run into a problem transferring a file from one hard drive to the other is the FS is different. I think your grasping at straws now.
it matters when you install an app and it needs libraries from xxx path and your path is different because you use suse vs. mandrake.
It always cracks me up when people respond to Linux posts with "Linux, blah blah, Linux blah, blah, nobody cares about Linux." My 60-year old non-power-user dad uses Ubuntu. I'm an average end-user and a gamer at that, and I use Ubuntu. I never plan on using Vista. The people who think that Linux is an irrelevant fanboy project followed by a few fanatical disciples are seriously out of touch.
Well i don't care for windows anymore, or anything microsoft related they are a disgusting company. I like my linux and mac, and playstation, and creative zen, and google search.
Non of that zune, xbox, live mail/search or windows crap. They just churn it out, they don't have passion or innovation behind there products just the thought of getting your money. I mean look at Ballmer prick.
Aye not using microsoft products personally is a nice thing :)
Well good for you. If you like that stuff, then go ahead. Nobody's stopping you. On the other hand, I don't like eating chili dogs, but I don't need to post that up either.
Nobody's making you read this post either, and commenting on how anti-MS you are. So if you don't like MS, that's cool.
But not everybody thinks MS products are crap. There's obvious fans or people who want to use it, or they still wouldn't be existing.
So your little comment wasn't very constructive or relating to the post you know. I don't know why you just had to put that there.
And I don't get where you have the idea that Microsoft employees don't have passion, or have never innovated or changed the way things work. MS employees blog all the time (without corporate involvement, thank you very much)and it's all open for anyone to see. And like I tell every person who says Microsoft doesn't innovate : look at the Office 2007 UI, PhotoSynth, OneNote, Xbox Live, Zune's WiFi, etc.
And if there's another company that just wants your money more, try looking at Apple as well. There's a reason why they're called "companies", probably because they want to make a profit?
of course windows 7 is going to resemble Vista in the alpha stages
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alpha.asp
I wanted to reply to Tyguy:
You start out with some knowledeable-sounding statements, but some apparently conflicting statements about your job impact your credibility. You claim to manage an IT department yet you're doing "lots of user support" support *and* you "design UIs for a living." Hmm.
I'm not hearing from anyone with as many Vista BSOD issues as you claim to have. Hmm again.
Now, if you are a sysadmin as you claim, you do understand the concept of Least Privilege and the reason's it's a good thing, right? UAC finally allows least-privilege operation of the system without all the funky manual context shifts via RunAs which plagued XP. Allows certain operations (like uninstalling a program) which just couldn't be done under a nonadmin account on XP - even with RunAs.
UAC is a major stumbling block for Windows users, I don't deny it. Similar systems on mac and Linux aren't as jarring simply because you've been trained to expect them - but UAC is a new thing for Windows. Also it's true that on Windows there are a few operations which take too many UAC prompts to get through - that will imrpove as MS works through all the use cases, I hope. But give it time and you'll get used to it (I did!). I agree it's annoying at first, but as time goes by (and your computer is setup the way you want it) you barely see the UAC prompt anymore.
Most people I see complaining about UAC, are one of three cases: a) still in the first few weeks of getting their computer setup with new programs and OS preferences, or b) running poorly written programs that require too much admin level activity, or c) incorrigible tweakers who are *constantly* performing admin level activities.
I can see how my job credentials may seem conflicting, but its not uncommon to wear many hats in a smaller company. Seeing as I manage the IT department I handle both user issues internal to the company as well as direct the software development that my company does for clients. I also do contract work for a non profit as their IT manager so I get my hands in everything. I doubt this is really pertinent to the discussion of vista because a person either likes it or doesn't, but I also have a computer science degree and am a MS certified professional.
Frankly, I have heard of several BSOD issues. Regardless of what you have heard, that was my experience on 4 different machines (tablet pc, new sony laptop, athlon 64 x2, & a core2duo machine)
UAC is not a problem due to user training. UAC is a problem because its very poorly implemented. I don't disregard the systems on Linux and Mac because I expect them... its because they are designed properly.
Also, you can state that Least Privileged is a good thing. And I agree, but I still haven't had an issue with XP due to my users running as admins. There's always a balance between theory vs real world issues and I've found that user training makes up for the downsides of an OS. Furthermore, extra security does not make up for a bad OS.
I also failed to mention that Vista has major issues with file operations (which reports of sp1 say are fixed somewhat but not all the way) and explorer works appallingly bad over a vpn connection. I purchased a new Sony laptop for my boss which came preinstalled with Vista and used it while I went on a business trip to Scotland. Explorer regularly locked up for on me for 10 minutes or more when trying to browse a network drive, while connected over VPN. If I let explorer sit it would respond eventually and list the files but thankfully, I could browse the network through a web browser and get the files I needed. Explorer in XP isn't great with remote file shares but at least its not broken. Yea, and this was only 2 months ago. Luckily, upgrading to xp was simple thanks to Sony providing drivers.
I'll reply to your post again and ask you this: What benefit does Vista bring that would justify a company spending 10 to 15 thousand dollars to switch from XP? That 10 to 15 thousand dollars is simply the price for a small company of 30 users or so, and doesn't include training, hardware upgrades, or software rewrites.
One of your cases for disliking the UAC is that a person is using bad software. Well what defines bad software? MS makes a new OS that suddenly disallows Admin access, so software that breaks is bad? Do you realize that a lot of software makers didn't require admin access because they were writing bad software but because the architecture of XP required it? Even Microsoft's software did this. This is why visual studio and visual interdev don't work properly with vista. As a company we can't just change all of our billing or finance software unless upgrading the OS really makes sense. We could run that software in virtual machines. But guess what? Vista brings nothing to the table in terms of productivity to justify this. It functions exactly the same as XP except that the UI is more convoluted, the network file operations suck, and there is a broken UAC control. So which of those will increase productivity and pay for itself? Is it the theoretical security fixes? Seeing as the machines are behind a firewall and all sensitive data is locked down on servers this hasn't been an issue since we were using nt 4.0 and 98. Have we had a virus? yea. have we had user's install stupid software? sure. I doubt vista would have prevented either, and neither actually caused any real problems. I don't want to sound like security doesn't matter, but frankly people get sucked into worrying about the wrong things. For instance, everybody is out there buying SSL certs for their websites and leaving credit card and soc numbers unencrypted on their database servers. Sure, SSL certs are fine but the DB is what's important. When Microsoft said they were going to use a real tcp stack all sorts of people said the internet would be destroyed. Was it? Does a user level OS really need UAC? In all my years of using linux and mac os I've never had a "UAC" pop up from some rogue program trying to install something. I don't think having it is a bad thing, and really expect it on a server, but is it something that's going to sell me on an OS?
Now, if vista came on a machine that I bought for home would I feel the need to take it off? Not necessarily... but I'm not going to do that until I have no choice. At home, I may have to for directx 10 support but that hasn't been an issue yet and will never affect most companies.
there shouldn't be compatibility issues with windows 7 except for the usual as I'm going to assume if they are writing the kernel over it will be meant for compatibility with current product releases that year and beyond. If you needed to run anything previous ie osx, xp, vista or need drivers dating back as far as 98 - thats what virtualization is for.. Primary focus of windows 7 quash the rumblings on in the underworld with vmware
ha! ha! oh, sorry. He said "lean and mean" and "windows" in the same sentance. hahaha... oh engadget you're killing me.
I think MS was quite clever with this. They released Vista which is slower so when Windows 7 comes out it appears faster than the previous OS. XP is still faster than both of those but by the time Windows 7 is out we will all be forced to migrate to Vista and why would you do that when you can just buy Windows 7!!! Hey, it's faster than Vista! Clever buggers....
Tyguy - responses:
I'll rack up everything in your first response to differences of experience (with the OS) and situation. I have had no problems with Vista in VPN situations. I've been running Windows in Least Privilege mode (ie: nonadmin) since NT4 - and making users do it too. It has *significantly* reduced the number of security/malware incidents my teams see, compared to those of other organizations.
On to your second post, where I see greater issues. $10-$15k to upgrade 30 users from XP to Vista? where are you doing your shopping? That's $333 - $500 per user! A new retail licensed DVD of Vista Business from Newegg is $250 today. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116138) And you can get upgrade licenses for $180, or OEM for $145. That's without even bothering to quote out a volume license. So this seems to be a case of exaggeration (due to disliking the product?).
As to UAC and 'bad software'. Admin access has *always* been discouraged in the NT family! The OS was purposefully written to enforce specific privilege levels. Although I will grant that promoting the user to Admin during install (which ahppened with W2000 and XP) was stupid, Microsoft has recommended writing software for least privilege use since the NT3.51/4.0 days. They published exact specs on how to do it (the 'logo program') which were pretty easy to follow - it boils down to 'outside of program install/deinstall, write data to the user profile folder and to HKCU (registry) rather than to Program Files or other registry hives'. As an example, here's the relevant part of that spec for Windows 2000 Professional: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms995853.aspx. So the idea that this was a 'sudden change' is at best a very bad misunderstanding on your part - at worst, something you're intentionally forgetting or hiding when you claim "MS makes a new OS that suddenly disallows Admin access..."
Visual Studio *does* work as nonadmin with Vista - just put yourself in the Debugger Users group. It's part of the install for later versions of the product, iirc. A quick google shows people doing it in 2004 - http://www.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/securityfocus/focus-ms/2004-06/0049.html. We had them doing it earlier than that at companies where I've worked, but this link just provides a little proof. Developing with Administrator privs is a **big** part of how this problem came to be in the first place! (I can't claim any experience with Visual Interdev, so no comment there.) Again, is this something you truly didn't know, or something you want intentionally want to mislead people about?
It seems to me that you are on a rant, and are picking increasingly bad examples to justify that rant. So I won't bother to reply to the stuff about SSL certs and the like. If you, personally, dislike Vista - that's one thing. Everyone has their own preferences and comfort levels. But exaggeration and untruths are just not a good way to illustrate your preferences.
Why I like Windows: Program compatibility. Hardware compatibility is no concern for me since I use a machine that came with Vista and runs it perfectly. Many of the programs I use are Windows only, and their Mac and Linux alternatives don't match up.