Subscribe to Windows IT Pro

 

Get Newsletters

  • Get the Latest News
  • Product Updates
  • Helpful Tricks
  • Productivity Tips

Subscribe Now!

January 02, 2008 12:00 AM

Vista Hating: The Final Chapter

Windows IT Pro
InstantDoc ID #97852
Rating: (12)

A couple of months ago, I asked readers why people "hate" Windows Vista. I got--and continue to get--lots of responses to my October 31, 2007, commentary ("Why, Exactly, Does Everyone "Hate" Vista?") and December 5, 2007, commentary "How Do People Hate Vista? Let Me Count the Ways…"). As always, thanks for that! I saw four main reasons why some readers hate Vista: "It has a new UI that I don't want to learn," "It doesn't offer that much improvement for the effort of migrating to it," "It's slower than Windows XP," and "We big customers now have to deal with the product-activation irritation that small firms and homes have dealt with since XP." These arguments cover most Vista-haters' objections, but there are many more reasons why people dislike the new OS. Now, I don't want to belabor the point further (although it's sort of interesting from a "sociology of computers" point of view), so let's see how many more I can briefly cover here.

"I hate Vista's new digital rights management (DRM) system," several readers wrote. They're referring to the fact that Microsoft requires much of the Vista software that plays music or videos to be digitally signed by Microsoft. Redmond set these restrictions because it wants to keep people from snooping on multimedia playback, as that sort of snooping would make life easier for people trying to crack the encryption schemes in DVD, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, and the like. I must agree that I find this requirement irritating, but honestly there's always been a similar "protected path" for some audio playback code in parts of XP. Thank heavens we've still got the Linux guys to figure out how to copy DVDs!

As I've noted before, some Vista complaints arise from, well, faulty memories. Some readers have claimed that while XP arrived with full driver support, Vista did not; some versions of Vista don't support full networking, whereas all versions of XP do; and upgrading to Windows 2000 from Windows NT 4.0 was compelling because of the mountain of patches that NT 4.0 required upon installation, while Vista lacks such attraction. I was there in 2001, when XP lacked a bunch of patches and XP driver support wasn't considered de rigueur for hardware vendors until late 2003. XP Home has always lacked full networking capabilities, and to the patching argument, take a look at the number of patches that any new copy of XP requires. Six years is a long time, and XP needs a lot of patches. (Don't get me wrong--XP is still a great OS and no XP user needs to upgrade. But then, neither would a Win2K Pro user, if Microsoft weren't phasing out support for Win2K. But saying that XP appeared to great anticipation, with full hardware support, and nary a hitch is, well, rosy hindsight.)

A few other readers wrote in, "The new UI is unprofessional-looking," adding that "Vista Business shouldn't include the eye candy"--a darned interesting perspective! About all the advice that I can offer these readers is to turn off Aero Glass, change the theme to "Windows Classic," and kill the Sidebar. "It takes more clicks to get to many administrative tools--the network properties in particular," others opined, and I can't agree more. That's one reason that I'm a command-line fancier!

"Vista is less secure than XP," one reader complained, citing it as a major reason why he wouldn't recommend Vista to his firm. Puzzled, I reminded him of Vista's revamped firewall, BitLocker, the new services architecture, randomized code location (which makes writing worms very, very difficult), and a host of new security stuff. "How," I asked, "is this less secure?" His answer was that so many people perceive Vista to be less secure, and "perception is reality!"

Perhaps that's the salient point here. Two readers wondered why I was "toadying" to Microsoft trying to get people to buy Vista. (They used less kind words.) As I've said before, I couldn't give a hoot what OS people buy; I just didn't understand what all of the Vista hollering was all about. Now I understand better. And friends, if perception is indeed reality, then the smartest marketing decision is clearly to invite you all back next month for my first Macintosh column. See you then!

(Okay, that was a joke.)

Related Content:

ARTICLE TOOLS

Comments
  • Joyce
    4 years ago
    Jan 07, 2008

    Folks don't seem the mention the one thing I find really annoying about Vista - it seems that everything that took only one click on XP now takes two or three. I'm an administrator on my own machine, so can anyone tell me how to tell Vista that I really want it to do what I asked it to do? Any reason why after I do CTL-ALT-DEL I then have to select an icon with my name on the desktop before I can enter my password? Little things, but over the course of the day these things take time which means reduced productivity. Anyone have a suggestion of a good Vista book that gives all the tricks for making it more efficient to use?

  • Murat
    4 years ago
    Jan 04, 2008

    mark, you CAN'T use Vista's Recovery Environment Regedit command to repair earlier versions: Cause is Vista cannot recognize earlier versions, hence regedit cannot connect to the registry of XP or 2003 or 2000.
    In 1995 we COULD upgrade 16-bit windows 3.11 to 32 bit windows 95. After 12 years, after all these technological advances we now cannot upgrade 32-bit OSs to 64-bit ones. Isn't it ridiculous?
    About the price: Bill Gates said in the past that price of the OS was not expensive, it only constitited %20 of the whole PC price. Is it the case with the Vista now?
    Last thing: Can you tell the differences among the Vista versions to your customers?

  • MARK
    4 years ago
    Jan 04, 2008

    Hi all --

    First, as I note at other articles, it's always better to respond to my email in the article -- I don't get to these Web pages often because I've got over a thousand articles. On to the comments ...

    jluethje -- command's easy.
    a) Windows orb (the old "start" button) / type "cmd" and press Enter.
    b) If you use it a lot, as I do, then it ends up in your most recently used area, or, better, put it in your "always here" part of the start menu. Then it's Windows Orb / Command Prompt.
    c) Press Windows Key and then R.

    muraty --
    a) I'm not sure why lots of versions are so troubling. The ones we'll see in the commercial market (Business, Enterprise, some Ultimate) are about 98 percent matches, so what real difference does it make?
    b) "Vista's more expensive." I've already agreed, see my previous articles. Heck, I thought *XP* was too expensive when compared in price to, say, NT 4 workstation.
    c) Can't comment except to say that I appear to be able to work on any NTFS 5 volume (Windows 2000 and later). It lacks some nice features like disabling services offline but regedit (which is in WinRE) can do that. Or use SC.exe, that works too.
    d) Upgrade paths: yes, I wish I could use an upgrade path to shift between 32 and 64, but how does that make Vista DIFFERENT from earlier Windows? You can't do that with 32 bit / 64 bit Server 2003 or XP.

    Cfischer83 --
    Remember that almost no one "buys an operating system," they just USE one to get their stuff done with their apps. Personally I think that UIs should mainly stay out of my way and be inconspicuous, but the truth is that people don't just buy beige matte-colored cell phones and MP3 players, they buy burgundy and aqua-colored ones. It's a matter of taste.

    Again, PLEASE engage me, folks, but please do it on e-mail. I can't thank you all enough for taking the time to read my stuff!!!!!

    Mark

  • mark
    4 years ago
    Jan 03, 2008

    "It has a new UI that I don't want to learn" -- people don't want to learn Start search, Favorite links, filters & other Explorer enhancements? These are features I miss every time I'm forced back to XP.

  • Cory
    4 years ago
    Jan 02, 2008

    You know why people don't like Vista? Because they're ignorant! That's not an insult, it's just true. Most of the time you'll hear people quote some mac-huggers blog and say they "never installed Vista because it's so horrible" or, "I uninstalled in 30 seconds after I bought it". It's the same across the board, people don't like change even if it's a vast improvement! It's not perfect, no, but for all the LITTLE problems it has I find myself not pulling my hair out like I did with XP at times.

    I've also found that Vista is ridiculously faster than XP. I have 22 second boot times.

You must log on before posting a comment.

Are you a new visitor? Register Here

advertisement

advertisement

White Papers

Get your Windows 7 deployment off to the right start by implementing PC lockdown. A locked-down environment is easier and cheaper to support since users are less likely to make unnecessary changes to the core system configuration - read more here!

Essential Guides

Is your iSCSI "lossy"? The reality is that most off-the-shelf Ethernet hardware deployed for iSCSI can lose packets, resulting in slow performance or application downtime. Learn how to assess your current iSCSI infrastructure and engineer an advanced iSCSI SAN infrastructure.

Web Seminars

What's the best way to keep your network safe from malware? In this web seminar, security expert Greg Shields suggests an alternative method to the traditional blacklisting approach that is common with anti-virus and anti-malware solutions.

eLearning Series

We bring the experts direct to you to share their real-world perspective and expertise. During each event, three sessions stream in real time, so you can learn, ask questions, and get solutions.
Upcoming event: Getting the Most with Exchange 2010 with Paul Robichaux

Subscribe to Windows IT Pro!

Windows is a trademark of the Microsoft group of companies. Windows IT Pro is used by Penton Media Inc. under license from owner.