Change is not the same as better

Change

In a post I read this morning, one of our members asked:

I certainly can't speak for anyone but myself, but with me it isn't a reluctance to learn something new. I embrace change when it offers an improvement over the old.
When Win95 and then Win98 first appeared I heard the grumblings of those who had become used to Windows as they knew it and claimed they didn't have time to learn new software. The same happened when XP arrived on the scene.
It seemed that each new incarnation of the Windows' platform was met with skepticism. There was even some criticism that was valid. Each new operating system complicated many of the actions needed to configure and customize computers. For example (and this is only one of many that immediately jumps to mind) the Device Manager was accessed by two clicks of the mouse in W98 whereas it takes five jumps in XP. At the time of the change, I put this down to the MS engineers trying to make computers more secure from inexperienced users accidentally making a damaging change to their system. Also it seemed to me that with the advent of the internet and the malicious actions of hackers, spammers and virus writers, it made sense to make it harder for these malevolent people to mar the experience of those who wanted simply to expand their world. This (in my opinion) had a counter productive result however.
It appears to have become a game. Make the system more secure – challenge others to circumvent the safeguards. The only rational reason I can see for writing a virus is to claim bragging rights about how you overcame the engineers.
That being said, I contend that change in itself is not necessarily the same as improvement.
When Windows ME came out, I immediately obtained a copy and installed in on my computer. Unfortunately I soon found that it was slower than the then prevalent Win98 and was plagued with a near constant array of crashes. I gave it every chance I could before I eventually was forced to downgrade back to Win98.
Even MS seemed to agree and swept this fatally flawed system into the dustbin.
Soon afterward XP SP1 made its debut.
Again I opened my wallet and invested in an upgrade.
Although this OP also seemed to build obstacles to personalizing my computer, the advantages offered by its versatility (not to mention the fact that many new programs appeared on the market that simply wouldn’t run on Win98) seemed to make it a change for the better. SP2 was then released and everything seemed to be fine.
Now we have been presented with (and nearly coerced by computer manufacturers to implement) Vista.
I bought a new laptop with Vista on it and was determined to see what improvements it held.
Sadly I was to find that my new – much faster and beefed up RAM – computer took approximately twice as long to boot up as do my XP machines. I figured I could live with this inconvenience. Win 3.x loaded faster than Win95 which loaded faster than Win98 which loaded faster than XP. I accepted that a machine that did more, needed longer to setup to do it. But then the nightmare took hold.
E - v - e - r - y - t - h - i - n - g - w - a - s - i - n - c - r - e - d - i - b - l - y - s - l - o - w.
To add insult to injury at every turn I was being asked to approve each action I took.
If I had wanted to pull teeth, I would have become a dentist.
I gave Vista three weeks before I finally gave up and downgraded back to XP.

So to answer the question posed in the thread I read this morning:
I’m not reluctant to use Vista, I will wait until they make it work in a way that makes sense, not problems.

 

I understand the need for MS as a business to come out with new and "improved" products to keep themselves in the forefront of today's market. Certainly if they didn't offer new things, they would soon be historic.
Yet, I do take exception to the (what I assume is a) marketing strategy they are employing with Vista.
Never before have they made an operating system that is almost totally unable to run programs made for earlier versions of their product.
I like many others (particularly businesses) have invested hundreds of dollars in programs that work fine in XP (and W98 for that matter) that are useless in Vista. Many of these programs (some of which are very popular) are quite expensive and the companies who made them have no way to upgrade their products to be able to be used with Vista. They simply have new versions that you have to buy.
Perhaps it is of no concern to Mr. Gates, but not everyone can afford to pay several hundred dollars for a new operating system, only to find they also have to spend many more hundreds of dollars for new versions of the programs they use.

 

Windows key + r --> devmgmt.msc

-or-

Right-click 'My Computer', select 'Manage', select 'Device Manager'

I'm all about finding the fastest way of working with the machine. If you can think of other scenarios, I would love to show you the most efficient means of handling them that I know of. I bet it is not half as bad as you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_computer

Malware can be used for monetary gains. You just have to be creative. The days of the type of hacker you describe are long gone. (Although some script kiddies looking for a cheap thrill might still exist, they are a minority) There are now teams of people looking to compromise computer systems for profit.

You're right, change can be painful, but I contend that you CAN'T improve without making changes.

LOL I can't defend EVERY change. I agree ME was a mistake. It was released for the wrong reasons. MS just wanted to keep on their cycle of releasing a new OS every two years, so they patched ME together out of old 98 parts, and some of their ambitions for the future. (At the time, they were also working on Windows 2000, the first NT operating system targeted for even HOME users, which was a major undertaking)

Not the first time they've done similar things. XP 64-bit edition for example, is just a repackaged version of Windows Server 2003. My applications detect my OS as Win 2K3!

I think their big mistakes are when they put business before technology. I'm going to try to prove that this is NOT the case with Vista.

This I have to disagree with again. SP2 caused a TON of problems for just about everyone who didn't roll it out properly. Myself included. Stricter driver models caused conflicts with hardware. UI changes seemed pointless and frustrated users.

LOL Please, post your make and model, and any upgrades you've done! Some major issues with laptops:

1. Hardware does not compare to desktop equivalents
2. Some OEMs ship laptops purposefully underspec'd *cough*ACER*cough*
3. OEMs pack their images with CRAP that kills the system performance

None of these are Microsoft's or Vista's fault.

*sigh*
If UAC is such a problem, try Linux or Mac OS. They've been doing similar for YEARS. It's about time Microsoft got on board.

What people don't realize that this is a correction to the biggest security hole in XP: administrator accounts.

Most OEMs ship their XP machines with the administrative account enabled, but with NO password set. (The average user is completely unaware of this too) This means that anyone who knows to press CTRL+ALT+DELETE twice at the welcome screen can gain administrative access to the machine with next to NO EFFORT!

Vista has NO administrative accounts by default. Instead, accounts have limited permissions, and when they request to do something that requires administrative privileges, the user gets the UAC prompt. Once the user confirms that the action IS something they want to do (likely after cursing at the machine) the task runs with admin privileges, and then quits, leaving with only basic privileges again.

That prompt that people hate so much is one of the best security features MS has ever offered. Shame their customers don't get it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#New_or_improved_features

This outlines a lot of the "under the hood" changes that MS has put into Vista. Most of these (besides UAC) are completely transparent to the user. As it should be.

I don't hear many complaints about change to the UI (except the odd person saying that it is unnecessary), so MS must've done something right there.

The other major change that will affect users is Vista's driver development model. This has become very strict, and as such, hardware that hasn't had updated drivers to reflect this change don't work well. This should result in fewer driver-related crashes in the long run (a big reduction of BSODs), but causes grief for any user trying to use legacy drivers, which is not something Microsoft can control.

My bottom line: Vista IS a better operating system than XP, and it is only public perception that says otherwise.

As users learn about their own mistakes with Vista, they will come to love it.

 

I won't try to say that there are NOT business aspects of this, but Vista is an icon for Microsoft's trustworthy computing initiative. They want to make people have as much faith in their computers as they do in their cars and airplanes that they trust their lives to.

Disagree. How many application conflicts were there when they switched from the DOS kernel to the NT kernel? There are all sort of emulation programs for XP to run DOS-based applications.

Again, not Microsoft's fault. This is user error. Microsoft would not recommend using the latest and greatest in a business critical situation. (Also corporate greed on the 3rd parties part - why fix a legacy product when you can release a NEW product that works in the new environment). My company still uses Windows NT to serve programs to our CNC machines, for example. That won't change 'til we're darn sure it will work in the new setup.

Again, the user should know what they are buying, and probably NOT put the latest offering in an environment full of legacy products that Microsoft does not support.

 

First, let me assure that removing "crapware" was never the problem. I cleaned off every piece of "free" and "trial" proigramming from the computer the first day I had it.
It would be pointless for me to "post your make and model, and any upgrades you've done". The system works perfectly now that I've got it running XP.

Secondly, yes there are "work arounds" and shortcuts that can be had for the experienced user. I was talking about how many layers of protection the OS places in the way of the casual user (by far the largest demagraphic of users) to understanding and using this product that they have purchased.

Thirdly, if MS is trying to inspire confidence in their clientelle, perhaps you can explain the mass exodus from this new OS. Also why now have MS themselves let up on insisting that computer manufacturers only offer Vista?
You say these things are not MS's fault. Well perhaps not their fault, but I still contend that this OS is really only usable by either a computer specialist or someone who has very deep pockets to replace their entire computer experience.

You also mention that their were many DOS based programs that need emullation programs to run on XP et al.
This is true. I was refering to Windows programs.
I wouldn't expect a Mac program to run unaided on a PC either.
On the other hands I still use many programs that I purchased for use with Win 95 that still work flawlessly with XP.

I would also invite you to tell me what you think is the advantage of Vista, for the everyday user.
If it is simply more layers of protection from the user themself and the outside world, then I am reminded of a poster I once saw called the OSHA Cowboy.
It showed a cowboy with a helmet, knee and shoulder pads, seat belts, googles, work gloves et al.

He couldn't move.

 

OSHA Cowboy
http://www.hsegroup.com/hse/text/cowboy.htm

 

Disagree.

This sounds like you're speaking relatively to me. How do we know you haven't purchased one of these underpowered laptops? One that's "fast and beefy" enough for XP, but doesn't quite cut it for Vista?

Posting your make and model would let us know whether you could even expect decent performance from the hardware you bought.

I guarantee that your performance issues stem from the machine you bought, or something that was done to Vista, and not Vista itself.

I've had clean installs working tolerably in a VIRTUAL computer. That means emulated hardware for almost everything, and only a fraction of the host OS's physical RAM is available for use. (I was using 1GB in the host machine, so my Vista VM was running on less than that)

Also, removing crapware is NOT as effective as a clean install.

Another variable we haven't mentioned is patching, but that would be getting pretty complicated.

Just because the UI has changed doesn't mean that MS is trying to confuse or restrain you.

In fact, most everyday tasks are EASIER to accomplish for the average user. It's the experienced users that have to really adapt, and in the end, they will find the shortcuts and workarounds.

Also, can you think of equivalents to Microsoft's products that are documented as well as Microsoft's are? I really doubt it. Microsoft's Windows and Office knowledgebases are AMAZING. What's more is that they are making a sincere effort to integrate those with their respective products, making it easier for users to find answers to their questions.

How often does a problem link in XP lead to useful information compared to the same in Vista?

A short term loss for a larger long term gain. Thought I had explained that already. Once people discover that it was their OWN mistakes that caused problems with Vista, they will warm up to it. The same can be said for their past products. XP too, was slow on the uptake. Now, it is regarded as one of their best products. I guarantee the same will be for Vista.

So was I. Windows 9x and ME use a DOS kernel. Anything else uses an NT kernel.

There is a cost for pandering to people who don't know, or are unwilling to figure out what they are doing.........

roflmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So don't tie yourself to your computer, and you should be fine when it starts bucking.....

No, not just protection, that's just the feature that appeals most to a geek like me. The advantages for an average user (aside from security) are:
- easier operation, maintenance, and repair of the OS
- Human readable answers to problems
- eye candy

Probably more I'm not thinking of right now....

 

I've had horrible compatibility issues with Vista...


http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/7830/capture2ai6.jpg
http://img408.imageshack.us/my.php?image=capture2ai6.jpg

 

Mada_Milty

The laptop that I purchased was rated by MS as being "Vista Ready".
Its processor, RAM, and HDD are all well within the parameters that MS posted as required for their OS.
I think it has been well documented that they forced many manufacturers to install Vista on machines that were not capable of running even their basic OS functions.

Do you honestly believe that when a user buys a product they should have to do a clean install of its OS?
Well over 90% of the Vista machines available don't even come with an install disk so that a moderately experienced user could do a "clean install". Or perhaps you think a buyer of a new computer should also buy a copy of the OS for several hundred dollars more.

BTW I never wanted to lay any blame here.
I am not, nor have I ever been a MS basher. I think that their OSes (for the most part) have been what has made the computer revolution work for the mass population.
I simply was trying to answer the question: "Why is everyone so reluctant to learn something new and use Vista?"


I am still waiting to hear a reason you think that Vista is superior, for the average user.

 

Mada has covered most of the bases, but one thing i have noticed, Vista is more stable than XP ever dreamed of being. In the 8 months that I have used Vista, I never had a crash or had to re-boot because things just weren't right. It seemed like a daily thing with XP.
'nuff said

 

I have a question. Why does everyone bash the Aero look of Vista, and then everyone under the sun in the XP, nix, and in some cases, OS X community try to emulate the look?

Just curious.

 

Not to take anyones side here... but it is Vista who is emulating the look. OSX and various versions of NIX had eye cnady long before AERO was out and about... i.e. beryl and compiz.

 

Blame the OEM there. That said, I de-mucked my HP laptop, and while it was a pain, it runs Vista just as fast as Ubuntu does, and I have no done any tweaking whatsoever.

Plus we all know that Ubuntu is as fast/faster than XP, so....

 

OS X did compositing first, sure. Aero doesn't look like OS X though. As for Compiz/Beryl...


Do I need to bust out release dates to prove you wrong, or would you care to Google a bit and find out for yourself?

 

Ah, nevermind, I will go ahead and do the leg work for ya.


Compiz came about with XGL in January 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiz


Beryl forked from Compiz some time later.

http://www.geekpedia.com/software38_Windows-Vista-Beta-1-Screenshots.html

Vista beta 1 had transparency and Aero. That was in....2005.


So, what were you saying?

 

So was my monitor.........

And you're reluctant to post specs because?????

This has been going back and forth for some time, and I can't say that I've stayed on top of it all, but are you certain MS hasn't retracted that decision?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Really, it's not truly Microsoft's product you are getting when you buy an OEM machine. It's like a re-branded OS you're getting. Who (but the OEM) knows what's been done to it?

This is currently a huge problem with XP SP3. HP released machines that use OS images with intel drivers, even on AMD platforms, causing the AMD machines to BSOD and reboot. Does that make you think less of your OS? A clean install is a darn good solution for people who can't or won't fix the OEM image.

It's the license you pay for, not the software. A user can get an install disk shipped to them for ~$10

You also said this:

So do you want to learn something about Vista or not? We are here to help you make your less favourable computer experiences better, but I think you've already decided on defeat.

I posted this too. Last I'll say on the subject. Thanks for the thrill.

 

Your sooooo gracious for doing my "leg work" as you call it. Thanks. really. The point is that it doesn't matter. and if the stupid thing had let me edit my originally post instead of our crap network at work allways logging me out it would have been explained better.

by the by I also meant final realeases and not RC's. I dont count rc's. so vista wasn't released to public until 07'.... not 05'

That being said I will just post the edited edit and leave it at that.

Not to take anyones side here... but it is Vista who is emulating the look. OSX and various versions of NIX had eye cnady long before AERO was out and about... i.e. beryl and compiz.

I had rotating desktops, transperant windows, and other effects before Vista was released.

That being said, the other half of my dual boot is in fact Vista 64. Because IT DOES WORK. All the programs I run work. All of my hardware works. And I didn't get upset when the game I bought back in 99 wouldn't start up. It's 10 yrs old. it's to be exspected. People didnt b!tch this much when you couldn't plug a "legacy" console game into the new system. Backwards compatibility wasn't even heard of yet. I still have hundreds of dollars worth of games from all my consoles. Yet I bought the new one with the thought process of "Hey new console! Sweet! That means new games. New developers. New content. New Ideas."

Just get over it. Use what you want to use, and don't complain to everybody else about what you don't like or what doesn't work. If it doesn't work for you move on to something different and leave it at that.I am sure that almost any member of this forum can take each availible OS and rip it to shreds for any number of reasons... however that doesn't really solve anything.

Lunch is over may you all rant in peace

 

Nice attempt at a retraction, but the point is, you claimed that Vista ripped off Beryl/Compiz and what not, while it is easy to see that Microsoft had it in development already, and in their betas beforehand, and Compiz ripped it off. Admit you were wrong, and let it go rolleyes

Dates don't lie, whether it was a final release of Vista or not.

A lot of people have the misconception that Vista ripped off Compiz. As Mada mentioned above, a lot of the Vista hate is merely public perception.

 

There is nothing to let go of really. As I also sated above... I like Vista. It works. It isn't slow. I have no comapatability issues with it. Everything else aside... once again... it all doesn't matter

So I bow down to your oh so superior googling skills and date memorization ability. May they serve you well in your day to day doings.

 

Don't be bitter! We're all learning!

 

I'm not bitter. I just happen to respond to any sort of holier then attitude with an extreme dose of sarcasm. Oh darn... I got dates wrong that I tried to pull out of memory with out checking them first on something that doesn't really matter anyhow. OH GOD!!! I should be flogged for my indescretions.

 

Wait...you are harping on me because you posted something blatantly false and didn't check your info beforehand?

Thats not my fault.


Rumors start from facts being wrong, skewed, twisted.

Better to stop them when you see them than propagate the bullcrap.

 

No... I am "harping" on you as you put it because it is now so far removed from the original topic. Hence the " It doesn't really matter" part. It has now been blown way out of proportion.

So to aid in good ol forum unity.... I bow down. My blatent errors should be punished. I am wrong. I am forever greatful for your compasionate way of teaching. I will never sin again and will check every miniscule detail... wether they matter or not.... so as not to bring down the wrath of the zealots.


That being said.... lighten the fsck up. you are taking yourself and this conversation way to seriously. In the immortal words of.... whoever the hell said it... ( dont have time to check the facts on this one ).... fsck ya if you cant take a joke.... BTW that includes sarcasm. I hop everyone here has a pleasant remainder to their day... and yes that even includes you Adrynalyne.

 

I'm not upset about anything, but I will say this:

Hiding your curse words with a similar word, but getting the obvious point across....

Stop it now.

That is your first, and last warning.

 

Fair enough. Warning noted.

 

Aye...but I don't have THAT small of a flash drive

I have Office 2007 portable on mine

 

To add to that:

I helped my aunt purchase a Vista-installed laptop. It is bottom of the line, but has 2gb of ram.

THe thing has only been partially de-crapified, and it still works wonderfully. She is completely computer illiterate, and comes from an Intel iMac. She loves BOTH Vista and OS X.

So, YMMV.

 

Simply for the record my laptop is a Dell:
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7250 (2.00GHz) 2M L2 Cache, 800MHz Dual Core processor; 2.0GB, DDR2-667 SDRAM, 2 DIMMS memory; with a 120GB Hard Drive, 9.5MM, 5400RPM
I was not reluctant to post these specs. As I said, they are irrelevant. If I had a problem with my machine I would have posted it in somewhere other than the lounge.

I agree that the problems do seem to arise not from MS but from the OEMs.
I still maintain that it is ludricrous to think that the average computer buyer should buy a state of the art computer and immediately contact MS, pay for a new install disk and then reinstall their OS.
I spend a fair amount of time helping people who have problems with their computers.
Most of them don't know how to configure their e-mail much less replace their OS.

I never intended this post to become a platform for boasting about individual members' prowess with computers, I simply meant it as an answer to the question of why the average person was not wanting to use Vista.

 

So, in closing, the thread should be re-titled to, "How Can We Make OEMs Stop Screwing Up Windows?"

 

I can accept that.
:wave

 

Dangit Halo, do you ALWAYS have to say the right thing? :-D

Interesting on W7 being x64 only....are they still planning on the new filesystem as well?