opinion In regards to operating systems it's awfully fashionable to bash Microsoft almost as much as it is to praise Apple, usually without recourse to common sense. In many cases neither is deserved -- regardless, building an OS is a colossal undertaking, requiring many resources and persistence of vision. This is not an easy, "pop down to the store for lunch" sort of task. And yet one year on, Microsoft has still failed to deliver.
I first installed Vista in November 2006 and it's been my primary operating system since.
Good lord, this is sounding like an alcoholic's anonymous meeting already.
Despite being ridiculously late, not including WinFS, Powershell and a bunch of other features, featuring a mercifully downgraded Palladium and the amazingly frustrating UAC (Do you want to run this program? Are you sure? Are you really sure? Perhaps you should triple check), I held out hope that Vista would develop into something important.
There were whispers that it'd possibly be the last Windows distributed on hard media, that under the hood it was a brand new engine, that it was modular enough for Internet updates to allow huge swathes of changes.
It certainly needed them, seeming to offer not much more than an accelerated shiny interface (ooh!), a disk crunching indexing feature for search (ugh!) and the spectacularly useless Flip3D, a dismal attempt at aping Apple's Exposé, without the usability (argh!). In fact the only feature I found impressive was the quick access search in the start menu, something that can be replaced easily with the superior Launchy, which, incidentally, will run just fine on XP.
And why should Vista be any different to previous versions of Windows? I've been a user since 3.1, and each major release has followed a similar pattern -- a bunch of changes under the hood, greater device support, broken programs, lots of swear words, a period of dual booting, and stability issues. Each has been, inevitably, slower than the last. There was the usual tirade from journalists calling it terrible, either not remembering that with the last release exactly the same thing happened, or cynically trying to boost shelf sales or hits.
Most of the problems were overcome with time and updates, the speed issues bypassed with newer hardware. With the exception of the abominable Windows ME, each Windows OS was a success upon the last.
The last time Microsoft really got it right was Windows 2000, although it took two service packs to get gaming compatibility going. Activation, separated Media Center app and garish Luna theme aside XP wasn't too bad either once the second service pack was applied, and became the reasonably robust platform most of the world is using today. Unlike 2000 though, it marked the start of Microsoft veering off course. Security at the expense of useability. DRM and corporate spyware. Looks over functionality.
Vista's biggest issue from the start was easily identifiable: the lack of compelling reason to upgrade. The stripping out of killer features meant it offered not much more than Windows XP, and of course the usual Windows OS teething problems meant "The wow starts now" became "The ow starts now". The ramped activation requirements didn't help either. Unfortunately not much has changed in the year that has passed.
Its major draw card is still the exclusive support for DirectX 10, but it will be a long time before games are DirectX 10 only (and even then, supported games are being hacked to get around Vista exclusivity). The eye candy can be by and large added to XP as well, with a few limitations. Some have gone so far as to hacking the OS, but I'd fear what that'd do to stability, let alone Windows Update.
Is there something appealing about Vista? Sure. It certainly handles falling over and recovery more gracefully, which is fortunate as Internet Explorer 7 crashes repeatedly, although I suspect that's something to do with Flash video. Plus if you open too many tabs, new links won't open, download dialogs come up empty, and everything in the application gets covered with a big black square, occasionally flickering the Web page behind it as you move the mouse around. I've yet to determine how many tabs are too many -- sometimes it's two, other times it's 30. IE7 on Windows XP exhibits neither issue -- perhaps it's time for the good ol' Windows wipe and reinstall.
Right now in the world, a zealot is screaming "use Firefox!". I prefer IE7 -- at least on XP. I know, I know, shoot me.
I won't start on the design issues or long term Windows bugs, or writing this column will become my full time job. Needless to say the sidebar is pants, and the weather gadget has told me it's been 13 degrees Celsius for months on end.
The trend of not delivering on promises came with Vista's launch as well -- Media Player integration with the Sanity Music store didn't happen (although Soundbuzz seems to have ended up there in its place), and sending photos to print at Kodak has disappeared into the ether.
So have we made any progress in a year? Well, NVIDIA and Creative finally have passable drivers (but don't read the documentation, you'll pass out at the number of missing features), and there's been the usual compatibility, stability and issue fixes. That's about it; nothing to increase Vista's value proposition.
And don't get me started on the Vista Ultimate Extras. They've been few and far between, mostly useless except for Bitlocker, and quite frankly if the newly announced Vista Plus pack doesn't fit under the free Ultimate Extras banner, we'll know Microsoft has run well and truly off the rails, down the ditch and into the lake.
Given that Vista is still having teething issues with gaming, I've recently been playing with another OS largely pointless for gaming -- Mac OS X. So far (despite the malnourished Finder as a file manager) I'm finding it a much better experience than Vista, and if I want to flex my power muscles, there's a perfectly wonderful console sitting underneath to do so.
It's compelling to your wallet too. Jobs' mob may completely overprice their hardware, limit your hardware choices, charge for what are essentially service packs and give away your right to high-end gaming (unless you want to dual boot with Windows, but then you're just doomed to repeat the same problems), but I'm almost willing to live with that.
Let's look at the biggest selling points -- the PC looks to be losing gaming importance as the slow and inexorable march towards consoles continues, and the fully featured, non-hobbled OS X runs at a measly AU$158, in spite of Apple's drastically smaller market share. Sure Leopard has its problems, but it currently holds more promise than Vista. The expensive hardware can be avoided too, if you're willing to dabble on the wild side and run OS X on perfectly ordinary PC hardware, even if the legalities are dubious at best.
With this in mind, and taking into account Vista's crazy prices, I've come up with this handy dandy table that pretty much sums up the current situation:
| Operating System | Price (AU$) | Copies of OS X this will buy | How crippled is it? |
| OS X | $158 |  |
Not crippled. Not great for gamers. Some other weaknesses, but otherwise quite good. |
| Vista Basic | $342 | |
Quite crippled, doesn't even have Aero. Not good for anyone. |
| Vista Home Premium | $405 |  |
Good compromise features wise, except for businesses. Comparatively good price to XP. Sadly little compelling reason to upgrade. |
| Vista Business | $515 |  |
No Media Center. No compelling reason to upgrade from XP. More expensive. |
| Vista Ultimate | $673 | |
Not crippled, but Ultimate-ly not worth it. |
Source of Vista pricing: CitySoftware
The picture gets even worse if you're technically minded and take Linux into account.
Okay, that might be slightly unfair. Boxed copies of XP Professional still go for around AU$500 if you can find them (thanks, Staticice!), and OEM costs are vastly cheaper for all concerned. In both cases Windows Vista Home Premium scores better than XP, and so appears a good deal. Those who use a laptop for both personal use and work should probably opt for Vista Business, which doesn't cost that much more and Media Center is unlikely a deal breaker for most. There's even upgrade bundles, which Apple doesn't offer at all, so it's not all doom and gloom. Still, there's still nothing ultimately persuading to make the move. The volume licensing scene might be different -- but I'm not in a position to comment from that perspective.
It's sad that one year later, Vista isn't much further along than when it started, apart from the perpetually released security updates and compatibility roll-ups. It seems Microsoft is so hung up on security that they've forgotten about useability. Even the first service pack is looking like a phone-in, a simple patch roll-up to convince businesses to jump on board.
With development videos already flying around on Windows 7 and the recent service pack tests, the message is that not only is the public not putting faith in Vista, but neither is Microsoft. Oddly, Microsoft's profits are saying otherwise, although this could be because Vista is the default OS on the majority of new machines -- there's certainly no stat for how many people wiped it off. Perhaps the current 6:1 advantage in XP's favour through Steam's surveys is a little more accurate an indicator, as is the business sector. For now, as long as Vista remains murky, I'm going to keep exploring the alternatives -- if Windows 7 is a farce, consider me switched.
pixolut
31/01/2008 04:02 PM
The biggest issue with Vista is that it is not meant to be a 32 bit operating system. It should NEVER have been released as a 32 bit operating system. If you make that separation, and review the state of play then the whole game changes: WindowsXP 64 is a joke - just like Vista 32 is. I just cannot understand how the Microsoft marketing machine screwed up SO bad. Vista 64 bit is more stable than XP ever was. It is really aimed at being a professional operating system and the fact that it is a DirectX enabled operating system which supports over 4GB of memory correctly (not to mention the performance increase, hardware DEP and proper driver validation which ensures your PC is and stays stable) then it becomes very compelling to move to Vista. Its all how you spin it; that is where Microsoft failed. In regards to OSX, you really need to consider the fact that OSX is practically a lease - not a purchase. Most applications will only work on a couple of generations of OSX before they are not compatible - whereas compatability is the foundation of Microsoft (stupidly so sometimes) - which means what you get for $500 from MS every 6 years will cost more like $900 from Apple. Only you pay by installment! All issues aside - you are right about the 'lipstick' features of Vista - they are just rubbish and OSX has clearly put it to shame. My concern is that nobody seems to be comparing 'apples to apples' so to speak. -Joe http://blog.pixolut.com
Report offensive content
jamesnorman93
31/01/2008 04:24 PM
What the? The pricing is all wrong!!!! I can get Vista Ultimate for $359.95 not $673!!! I can get Vista Home Premium for $230 not $405!!! What the? If your going to do a report... do it right!!!!!!!!!!
Report offensive content
Craig Simms
31/01/2008 05:50 PM
jamesnorman93: they're boxed copy prices, as taken from Citysoftware.com.au, as I did note under the table. Prices of course would vary between stores, but I'd suggest your prices are either US$, OEM or upgrade prices, not full retail AU$ -- and I did mention that OEM and upgrade prices would be cheaper after the table.
Report offensive content
Craig Simms
31/01/2008 06:02 PM
All interesting and valid points pixolut -- once we get to the need for 4GB RAM, Windows XP 64 is really quite dodgy, and so Vista will likely be the only opportunity on the Windows side. Or Windows 7 :) Interesting point about OSX software 'on lease' though. Do you think that is because of the architecture change from PowerPC and Intel, or are software companies just trying to bleed more cash?
Report offensive content
petergaskin@yahoo.com.au
31/01/2008 07:56 PM
Changing from my old computer with XP Service pack 2 and a rather uninspiring 250mb of ram, my new computer with Vista Premium and 2 gb ram really flies. Except for a problem with occasional ie 7 crashes, Vista has been great. I do not use my pc for intensive gaming. Insted, I take advantage of some of the media centre capabilities built into Vista premium. Peter
Report offensive content
Shivian
31/01/2008 10:21 PM
Yeah James... you are thinking OEM prices. i.e. limited transfer between hardware and you have to support the software yourself... not M$
Report offensive content
mitchel h
01/02/2008 01:12 AM
about to buy a new laptop with vista home premium. i was wondering if anyone knows if ms office 2000 will run on vista?
Report offensive content
Shivian
01/02/2008 10:24 AM
Can't say office 2k will run for sure but most Win32 programs should work - if in a compatibility mode worst case. The main problem I've been having with Vista is the hardware support is buggy. Software support has been ok as long as it isn't dependent on certain hardware!
Report offensive content
abezza
02/02/2008 12:46 PM
Personally I think Vista has copped an unfair wrap from a lot of people who expected too much without wanting to upgrade their hardware (which maybe 2 to 3 years of age at least). I really like using vista and have been a Vista (Business) user for approximately one year. Yes there are incompatibility issues. However, I say hooray!! It's about time Microsoft implemented new standards to push technology further. One of my favourite apps isn't fully vista compatible i.e. Divx Converter (still doesn't support duel core for vista) but it will be with a little time and patience. Time is the key for solving software and hardware compatibility issues. In a years time once windows 2008 Server is released businesses and government alike will steer towards Vista. In fact I know some government agencies are working to make some of their in-house applications Vista compatible. I say Microsoft has got the balance right and there will always be people who whine and moan. For the record I like using freeware apps. I like Firefox, Opera, Media Monkey and various distributions of Linux in general. So I am not a pro-Microsoft user as such...
Report offensive content
abezza
02/02/2008 01:01 PM
Mitchel h, I wouldn't try and use Office 2000 on Windows Vista. One of the more notable bugs with 2000 is USB support. If you open a file on a USB device it has problems letting go. You basically (in most cases) have to completely shut down office - If you want to safely remove your USB device. This is just one of many bugs. Office 2000 was great in the day but it is approximately 9 years old (Its very old by software standards). I have also experienced numerous crashes due to memory leaks (even when it has been fully updated to the latest service pack). Do yourself a favour and just purchase a Office 2003 - If you can still find a copy somewhere. However, I would strongly recommend you upgrade to Office 2007 as this has been designed specifically with Vista in mind. I have to say I like the new office 2007 it is full featured. The only downside is: 1. Getting used to the revamped user interface (particular with word and the new strip menu). Once learn't you most likely do not want to switch back. 2. I strongly recommend installing Service Pack 1 for Office 2007. It provides significant improvements to performance and stability.
Report offensive content
abezza
03/02/2008 11:48 AM
Mitchel h, one thing I forgot to mention. There is also Open Office, which is a freeware office package developed in conjunction with Sun Systems. The latest version is Vista compliant.
Report offensive content
pixolut
08/02/2008 12:02 PM
@Craig Simms: The issue with OSX having shorter and less compatible release cycles has existed since 10.0 (PowerPC only) and has become a culture and expectation for Apple users and developers alike. The move to Intel has not changed the culture but has underscored the demand without doubt; especially for software vendors. I would expect Windows7 to be a fundamental change in strategy for Microsoft and as yet their vision of software as a service is not yet solid - therefore their strategy on execution will not be focussed for at least 12 months. Regards, Joe. http://blog.pixolut.com
Report offensive content
Boost-Juice
14/02/2008 05:42 PM
Personally I took the advice of the CNET crew and bought a macbook pro 15" 2.4GHZ model with Leopard. Its nice at first, but I just miss the playfulness of windows. The customizability and user friendliness of windows to me is much more evident. I dont see how having the application in Leopard so many clicks away compared to "the start button" is even comparable. I have a brand new MAC PRO, and get into computers a bit, believe me apple is more enjoyable for the first 3 mon ths tillyou actually want to do stuff.... Although I also got my apple cause it was sexier than any other laptops... ANd now Im going to get XP for it through Boot camp
Report offensive content
GFXDSN
22/02/2008 03:27 PM
Boost-Juice... I think you need to look into the features of OSX a bit more... Apps are one click away in the Dock at the bottom of the screen. Just drag your app icon into it and there it is... one step less than XP. Both XP and OSX are pretty damn close on customizing so I don't know where that comes from. I work on a Mac at work and PC at home... have done for 7 years. Mac is faster...
Report offensive content
Chris B
22/02/2008 03:54 PM
I use a Mac notebook for my photography and a C2D clone PC for my games and internet. Craig wrote the article 3 weeks ago and re reading it, he has really tried Vista and like many others - I do not feel the MS love either. Why Vista and XP never dual booted has beyond me but i bios boot seperate HDD. Vista is like Windows ME.. it just shouldn't have happened. My notebook sales has totally gone to XP pro loaded machines. No one but AU Customs uses Vista in a working corporate environment. MS Windows 2000 was the first bite of the NT Business OS that people used to run away from Windows ME. Solid and basic was 2000, XP first release was a bloody nightmare like Vista is now. I think Craig is correct in his assumptions with Vista ( like ME) and what is touted with MS Windows 7 > I am too old to give birth to another Vista client > its time wasting and painful in customer support.
Report offensive content
Jerome S
06/03/2008 08:02 PM
I have been using Vista Ultimate 32Bit for a few weeks: it is overall great. I have had no problems with drivers, programs or hardware requirements (I'm a gamer). The often criticized User Account Control can be turned off simply. Maybe people expected too much from Vista? It was never going to be perfect....
Report offensive content
dan
08/03/2008 03:56 AM
I dont think that it is fair to compare the PRICE of Mac OSX to Windows Vista, because you cannot install OSX on a normal computer- you have to buy the whole shazam monitor and all, which is about $2000. Therefore Windows is better value.
Report offensive content
leonprentice
17/03/2008 04:38 PM
No way, dan - I helped my parents-in-law buy an old eMac a year ago for AU$550, and it runs OSX 10.4 very happily. I'd use OS X at work if I had the option, but XP does okay. No-one's even thinking of upgrading to Vista!
Report offensive content
Zozo
20/03/2008 10:52 PM
The problem with Microserfs is that they are so indoctrinated with Windows that they cannot see that OSX is vastly superior-no crashes, hang ups, meaningless error messages, gross security and malware issues. Trouble-free computing for 5 years-once you use Mac you don't go back! Do yourself and your sanity a favor, ditch the losers and get on the winning team!
Report offensive content
wheelhot
26/03/2008 06:33 PM
Like I kept thinking, as long a Vista = crap. Owning a Windows Notebook is NOT an option, so I left with Mac OS X that has some bugs but nothing as bad at crappy Vista, Im eager to see future OS X vs Windows 7.
Report offensive content
Randolph Lalonde
27/03/2008 09:02 AM
I recently purchased a Toshiba A200 Laptop. In the space of 20 hours of use (spaced over three days), fully updated Vista Home Premium crashed BSoD style (Blue Screen of Death) a dozen times before I stopped counting. I haven't had a laptop interrupt my workflow that much since I got a Dell with a defective battery. Fed up, I broke out my Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon CD's, wiped out the amateur OS that is Vista completely, and installed something that works. It's been a full seven days, and after installing Ubuntu (which took an hour, including the work I put in to find drivers), it has never crashed, I work worry free, play DVD's with perfect clarity, have gained a half an hour of battery power, find wireless networks easier, am more secure, have never had to reset my machine for software, and have been using sleep mode when I'm not using my laptop instead of shutting down ever since that first boot. Ubuntu is free. Vista is a waste in every sense of the word as far as I'm concerned. Manpower, storage media, time, effort and faith are all best spent elsewhere, period. By the way, don't try to advocate Vista or the passing effort Microsoft has put in, at least not where I'm concerned, you'll be wasting your time; Microsoft has forced my normally open mind firmly shut. I'll never spend a dime on them again if I have a choice in it. www.nightbynight.net
Report offensive content