What's wrong with Vista?

[dZeus]

Since its release, I see people complaining about Windows Vista over and over (much like people did about XP when it was released). This made me quite reluctant to try it myself. However, I installed it about a week ago (thanks, you know who you are!), and I can't say anything else than that I'm pleasantly surprised about Windows Vista.

Maybe I'm just weird, but I quite like it?

Sure it eats quite a bit of RAM, but you get some nice stuff in return for most of it (compositing desktop and superfetch for starters). As RAM is dirt-cheap anyway these days, I picked up 4GB before I made the switch.

As for UAC, I don't see the problem: ever tried running XP with users properly configured as 'user'? UAC makes that scenario workable instead of a hell to setup (as in XP).

What I really like about Windows Vista so far:
- users with reduced permissions + UAC
- superfetch
- hybrid sleep that resumes even faster than XP
- compositing desktop (Aero Glass)
- it doesn't write all minimized programs to the pagefile (with 4GB RAM in the machine none the less!!!), preventing the very annoying disk trashing that happened in XP (other alternative was to disable the pagefile in XP which many people adviced against for various reasons, or setting it to a small size which resulted in annoying popups telling me I'm running out of virtual memory)

My gripes with Windows Vista so far:
- where's the TweakUI? I need to change some stuff that TweakUI could easily do for me. I need an equivalent for Vista.
- support for more than 4GB RAM using PAE. Although I can't say it's better than XP in that regard, as they removed that feature from XP Professional after SP1. Fortunately I can use about 3580MB out of 4096MB installed. As my motherboard chipset and CPU don't support x64, PAE would be the only way to address and use all 4GB physical ram for Vista and programs, rather than 4GB minus space used up by BIOS and hw.

The main reason I see that people prefer XP is that Windows Vista eats quite a bit of RAM and you need a reasonable graphics card to get compositing. So for a lot of people XP is 'good enough' (Microsoft is falling for its own succes here?). Another thing might be slow driver support from hw manufacturers.

Did I miss something crucial here?

[MultimediaMan]

Enterprise-wise...the KMS (Key Management Service) is a pain to implement and maintain (essentially doing Microsoft's job for them...). Group Policy is amazingly stupid for migration: You can ONLY administer Group Policy from a Windows Vista or Server 2008 Console makes deploying a base Vista Policy ahead of time almost impossible.

Hardware requirements for Aero-glass are outrageous: most Enterprise class workstations and laptops can barely run it. RAM usage is excessive: again, by the time Security weenies are done with installing their $#!7, Vista, which already runs a bit slow, runs even slower when running all of the underlying stuff they want running.

Vista's VPN support is poor with our vendor.

Disk usage: mostly fixed in SP1, but the disk thrashing still hurts battery power usage, even when using a "fully-supported" hardware and Vista.

The UAC is nifty, but poorly implemented.

Printer Drivers are a mess for Vista: this is a major issue for us. Silent Driver installers are still pretty immature. A lot of the tricks and worksrounds which worked in XP and Windows 2000 don't work in XP: Dumb, considering.

Price: You get charged more for basically the same product. We could not justify Vista over XP when the primary functional difference in our enterprise was the UI.

[Gurm]

Enterprise-wise...the KMS (Key Management Service) is a pain to implement and maintain (essentially doing Microsoft's job for them...).

Actually you have 3 different options for key/license management. It's MORE flexible. Problem is you got spoiled - MS has let people run Win2k3+WinXP on the "honor system" for several years now. The new license management is MUCH BETTER than it was in xp/2k3, but you didn't HAVE to run it in XP/2k3.

Group Policy is amazingly stupid for migration: You can ONLY administer Group Policy from a Windows Vista or Server 2008 Console makes deploying a base Vista Policy ahead of time almost impossible.

... ok I'm gonna be crazy here ...

RUN A 2k8 SERVER. It's easy. It installs quickly, integrates seamlessly. Sure you have to upgrade to 2003 native mode. Oh well. But seriously... just install a Vista or 2k8 box ahead of time.

Hardware requirements for Aero-glass are outrageous: most Enterprise class workstations and laptops can barely run it.

Runs flawlessly on my 5-year-old Radeon 9600. Would run well on an even older 9500. Sure these were pricey cards back then. Don't yell at MS. Yell at your hardware vendor for thinking that their crappy Intel 91x was "good enough". This has ALWAYS been a huge gripe, hasn't it? Your XP wasn't alpha blended on mainstream workstations when XP came out, either.

The BIGGEST legitimate beef people have with Aero Glass is that the Intel 915 chipset, which SHOULD be perfectly capable of running it, can't because Intel limited it at the last minute (it ran fine in RC0-RC1, was removed for RC2 and RTM). Again, talk to your crappy hardware vendor.

RAM usage is excessive: again, by the time Security weenies are done with installing their $#!7, Vista, which already runs a bit slow, runs even slower when running all of the underlying stuff they want running.

Mmm hmm. You know, I almost buy this. Except that 4GB of ram costs like $50 right now. Go buy some more. And... Vista runs great with 1.5GB. But you know XP ran like ass with 256MB, too... which is more than most people had with Win9x.

Vista's VPN support is poor with our vendor.

Poor with every vendor, every time there's a new OS. Took Cisco and Sonicwall years to get good Win2k/XP drivers, too. And AnyConnect is AWESOME under Vista x64, I'm never going back even if they DO release a standalone client.

Disk usage: mostly fixed in SP1, but the disk thrashing still hurts battery power usage, even when using a "fully-supported" hardware and Vista.

Y'know, my disk doesn't thrash. And I'm using Bitlocker, even.

The UAC is nifty, but poorly implemented.

Designed from the get-go to piss people off. Gets your attention, doesn't it? Makes my mom actually ASK herself if she wants to do something. Yep, that's why they made it that way.

Printer Drivers are a mess for Vista: this is a major issue for us. Silent Driver installers are still pretty immature. A lot of the tricks and worksrounds which worked in XP and Windows 2000 don't work in XP: Dumb, considering.

THIS I will totally give you. I have NO idea why printer support in Vista is so bad. Between vendors like HP pulling their usual "oh we're dropping support for these 20 printers in the new OS" tricks (which they did for win2k and winxp as well), and the spooler crashing randomly in drivers which are supposedly supported...

Price: You get charged more for basically the same product. We could not justify Vista over XP when the primary functional difference in our enterprise was the UI.

I dunno. The equivalent bullet-point-for-bullet-point version of Vista is the same price, roughly. I just checked. Vista Business is within $2 of XP Pro at CDW. $204 versus $206. Again, you're just irked because you've gotten away with licensing it all wrong for the last few years. Is MS greedy? Yes. Are OS'es too pricey? Yes. But let's face it - people have gotten away with buying OEM-priced XP for a while now. The standalone business version of MS's OS'es has always run around $200, give or take.

[UtwigMU]

The problems I see in business:
- High hardware requirements that will do zero for business customers in terms of productivity. Most people run P4s and Celerons between 2 and 3GHz with 512MB-2GB, Intel graphics and 80GB HDDs. We'd have to replace or upgrade (graphic card, 4GB) them. Since this is small businesses mostly, they don't run standard image and have mish-mash of different computers. We'd have to do each one by hand, this would cost couple of 100 euros.
- Problems with printer drivers.
- Problems with old proprietary software. Some of the business critical software is still 16-bit. This got better with some vendors but again why switch OS if you run your business app in full screen most of the time.
- Licensing server: Installing, configuring, looking after. Most of customers have one server. Though most customers also just buy OEM licences.
- Users hate it. I'm not problematic myself. I could do my job on XP, Vista, Linux, MacOS, Office 2k3 and 2k7 don't make a difference for my use. Change a user to Vista or Office 2k7 and it's mutiny.

My observation:
- next rig will be Vista for 8GB of RAM goodness. (VMware, gaming...)
- I don't have a problem with UAC, I practice better security than my coworkers who hate UAC and install Flash player on headless 2k3 servers :P
- I don't like some further dumbifications they did from XP.

Otherwise I really don't like how Microsoft does keys and activation. For the past 7 years pirates were running XP without a problem (lately WGA prompts but that's just nagware). While legitimate customers need to have several different media (OEM, volume, action pack, retail...), keep track of which key is where. It also makes data recovery a bitch since you cannot just slap hdd into another machine. This only makes life harder for legitimate paying customers, while pirates have no problems.

[Gurm]

The problems I see in business:
- High hardware requirements that will do zero for business customers in terms of productivity. Most people run P4s and Celerons between 2 and 3GHz with 512MB-2GB, Intel graphics and 80GB HDDs. We'd have to replace or upgrade (graphic card, 4GB) them. Since this is small businesses mostly, they don't run standard image and have mish-mash of different computers. We'd have to do each one by hand, this would cost couple of 100 euros.

Why would you have to replace anything? You don't HAVE to run Aero Glass! Vista looks just fine without it, still a substantial facelist over WinXP. Nothing runs SLOWLY without the new graphics. This is a business workstation we're talking about, right?

- Problems with printer drivers.

Yup, definitely there.

- Problems with old proprietary software. Some of the business critical software is still 16-bit. This got better with some vendors but again why switch OS if you run your business app in full screen most of the time.

Why upgrade at all? Keep the 386! In all seriousness, MS Virtual PC is now FREE. If you REALLY REALLY REALLY need legacy support for an app so old that it just WILL NOT INSTALL under Vista, run a VM.

- Licensing server: Installing, configuring, looking after. Most of customers have one server. Though most customers also just buy OEM licences.

Anyone with a single server (small business) is going to get OEM licensed Vista, and not need a licensing server. Oh, wait. You just made your own argument.

- Users hate it. I'm not problematic myself. I could do my job on XP, Vista, Linux, MacOS, Office 2k3 and 2k7 don't make a difference for my use. Change a user to Vista or Office 2k7 and it's mutiny.

Really? Everyone where I work LOVES Office 2007, and wants to upgrade to Vista. Other than the usual "where did things go" and "hey this is different", less people "hate" it than you think. People "hated" XP, too.

- I don't have a problem with UAC, I practice better security than my coworkers who hate UAC and install Flash player on headless 2k3 servers :P

Pretty much. UAC is better than "high security" mode in 2k3, or the equivalent high security lockdown in XP.

- I don't like some further dumbifications they did from XP.

Such as? I think you'll find everything is still there, just abstracted an extra layer from the average user.

Otherwise I really don't like how Microsoft does keys and activation. For the past 7 years pirates were running XP without a problem (lately WGA prompts but that's just nagware). While legitimate customers need to have several different media (OEM, volume, action pack, retail...), keep track of which key is where. It also makes data recovery a bitch since you cannot just slap hdd into another machine. This only makes life harder for legitimate paying customers, while pirates have no problems.

Ahh yes. There is that. But honestly, if you DO slap the HDD into another machine, it WILL boot. Then you can get your data. It'll just nag you to death. Vista SP1 did away with lockouts, MS really does listen... eventually.

[Dilitante1]

I second the application compatability.
Billing system requires Citrix ICA client to run, not possible under Vista...... running under VMware at the local PC is assinine to suggest as nto run it you would need MORE ram.....office environments are typically locked down.....

[Jammrock]

Vista RTM worked like ass. Literally. It really was horrible. Vista SP1 is actually pretty good. I've been running it on my desktop since Feb (working for an MS partner has a few perks like that) and it's been running flawlessly ever since.

In a corporate environment there are still a bunch of issues wth Vista that enterprises are balking at. Like you *have* to run a KMS, where before it was optional, and that SVR record for KMS doesn't always work right out of the gate. The deployment scheme, if you use MS tools, is completely different and requires a good deal of research (I spent two months on it). A lot has changed in the way things work between XP/2003 and Vista/2008, and as usual people don't like it.

For home use though, Vista SP1 is fine as long as your system meets specs. I have a dual-core AMD @ 3.2 GHz, 4 GB RAM (which cost $90 USD), and an older 256 MB X800, and Vista flies on my desktop.

[Jammrock]

Off topic, MS was showing off an OS called WinFLP (Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs).

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/sa/benefits/fundamentals.mspx

It is an ultra low resource version of XP designed for old PCs, or things like the Eee. At TechEd they were using it as a way to implement Vista on legacy PCs through desktop virtualization. It was pretty neat until you realized you need a huge server infrastructure and licensing fees out the wazzu to implement a WinFLP + Vista virtualization environment...but never needed to do data recovery again almost outweighs the cost.

[Gurm]

Off topic, MS was showing off an OS called WinFLP (Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs).

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/sa/benefits/fundamentals.mspx

It is an ultra low resource version of XP designed for old PCs, or things like the Eee. At TechEd they were using it as a way to implement Vista on legacy PCs through desktop virtualization. It was pretty neat until you realized you need a huge server infrastructure and licensing fees out the wazzu to implement a WinFLP + Vista virtualization environment...but never needed to do data recovery again almost outweighs the cost.

The VMWare guy here is actively investigating the Virtual Desktop Workspace idea. We're all about not having to back up the workstations. *sigh*

[Mehen]

We're starting to switch what we can over to WYSE terminals. Much easier to support.

[SteveC]

I second the application compatability.
Billing system requires Citrix ICA client to run, not possible under Vista...... running under VMware at the local PC is assinine to suggest as nto run it you would need MORE ram.....office environments are typically locked down.....

I use out Citrix ICA under Vista - just had to manually update the Citrix client software before it'd work right.

[Gurm]

I use out Citrix ICA under Vista - just had to manually update the Citrix client software before it'd work right.

It depends on your Citrix server version. Claymonkey could comment more, he's currently "Mr. Citrix".

But virtually all Citrix can be made to work under Vista, by hook or by crook.

[cjolley]

It's interesting.
The MIS director here told me just yesterday that he had gotten word they MS was going to retire Vista sooner rather than later. According to him they are going to accelerate Windows 7 and send Vista to the same bone yard as ME. He didn't say when, but made it sound like even sooner than has been talked about publicly.

We have about 2000 Win licenses and aren't going to install Vista at all, going straight to Windows 7. And then only when we are forced. We have a LOT of desktops with <1GB of ram and Intel graphics.

Just the idea of upgrading ram is impossible. Each tech would have 200-300 boxes to open

[Gurm]

If you have a lot of boxen with 512MB and Intel graphics, they're approaching end-of-life, right? Let's face it - you get a snazzy 1 year warranty with those things.

And the rumors about Vista's end-of-life in favor of Win7? You don't want that. You REALLY don't want that. Windows 7 is Vista with a touch interface. It's Vista SP1 with touch controls. It's Vista SP2. It's NOT a new kernel. It's NOT new networking. It's the same thing. They're calling it Windows 7 for MARKETING reasons, because there's a perceived bias against Vista.

"Let's take this much-ballyhooed hate for Vista and just rebrand Vista as Win7!"

[rylan]

Yeah I thought Win7 was going to be a different kernal and everything, but apparently from the recent demo and info about it, it is nothing but Vista with multitouch support so that means more bloat.
BLEH!