Find Whirlpool Deals at Lowe’s
Windows Vista: Windows Vista Bugs
Windows Upgrade Advisor was not meant to catch everything!
by Zeppo - 2/16/07 11:02 AM In reply to: MIcrosoft vs third-party vendors by photohamThe WUA was designed to give one a fair idea about the hardware and software capatibility with Vista in their computer, whether it met the general requirement for the upgrade. The tool was never created to detect old or out-dated drivers running hardware, which would have been a daunting task!
Many users didn't use WUA or they didn't make certain their hard drives had enough free space, or they didn't make certain they were running the NTFS file format, not FAT32. Nor did they update their copy of WinXP prior to upgrade, or they didn't (and probably most didn't know to do this) update the drivers in their computer - a free scan was possible at www.driveragent.com, which could point out which ones needed updating before they did the upgrade. And there were those who didn't know to disconnect any hardware that might be causing problems. People are people. Some where smart about their upgrade, some where clueless.
Vista is Microsoft's most complicated OS to date. It requires much more knowledge from the end user, which is really necessary just to get the average person to understand how important certain tasks are, such as simply doing backups or using security features. It would be nice I suppose if we could just all get in our cars and let it do everything, but we can't. Such devices still require that we understand how to steer it, how to stop, when it needs oil and maintanence, new tires, etc, etc. The modern computer is the same. When a user doesn't want to make any effort to understand his computer, he is simply asking for trouble, for when it comes he will have no clue how to deal with it.
And to be on topic, third-party vendors are absolutely the problem here - not Microsoft nor the Windows Upgrade Advisor they created. Third-party vendors sat on their butts and now must play catch-up. Some vendors think the least they can is the best they can do - that's no way to keep their business healthy. Seems many of them must of been thinking that Vista would not sell very well. Vista went through several beta versions and was available to vendors for a very long time. Blame the third-party laggards here, NOT Microsoft!
Agree - WUA not meant to catch everything
by pphan - 3/14/07 5:13 PM In reply to: Windows Upgrade Advisor was not meant to catch everything! by ZeppoThe MAC marketing guys should look at this Forum. Every argument defending MSFT is another argument for switching to MAC. Since when should a PC user have to have CompSci degree just to print a page or view a picture?
They are expected to be perfect
by meisinscotland - 3/17/07 8:05 AM In reply to: Windows Upgrade Advisor was not meant to catch everything! by ZeppoI finally got it! Microsoft are expected to be perfect while mistakes made by Apple are looked over. Its not right, and it shows the childish behaviour of many people on this earth.
So when Microsoft are not perfect, which, they usually arent, people just use it as a weapon against them. Think: If Apple were the Microsoft of today, everyone would hate THEM and THEIR OS would be the supposed crashy and cheap that people attribute to Windows. I actually find Windows is fine, to be honest. Sure, Malware cant get into the house if there's no door, but if you dont go looking for the malware, it is unlikely to find you.
PCs are in a different universe than Mac
by jarvis9in - 3/14/07 5:33 PM In reply to: MIcrosoft vs third-party vendors by photohamPCs have all been at war with each other over low price and higher and higher performance (of course they need higher performance to run all that extra code). I think, as a PC user who was forced to use a corporate system instead of my Mac, that Microsoft could have brought out a system that was ready to go with the major vendors. Please, let's not say Mac and PCs are the same anymore. Apple has not been referred to as predatory in their system upgrades or new OS; pricey, but not predatory. Microsoft charges what they want, does what they want,and the PC users just put up with it because they live in the Microsoft universe and don't realize that with a Mac they don't have to put up with this. Yes, both Mac OS and Windows are now complicated because we expect so much from our computers (mobility, scanning, printing, security, speed, powerful). But when I've called Apple on one of their products, I don't get the "you'll have to call the vendor" crap. They usually stand behind their product and closely control the standards. Not so with PCs-- MS has gotten you to all believe that you can blame the vendors--- while Microsoft collects all the money for products that just are never ready for us to use. Wasting our time while they charge what they want--see why I used the word predatory?
Screw Windows
by eddloggg - 3/14/07 6:33 PM In reply to: PCs are in a different universe than Mac by jarvis9inI hate having to reformat once a year due to spyware and other bad things. I have been a Mac user for 8 years, and recently became aquainted with Linux. I see no need ever to have to deal with microsoft again.
As for this whole 3rd party responsibility, why would microsoft care? They dont have to write the drivers, because they are not microsoft products needing the drivers. As for Apple, all updates come in nice little packages that come in the Software Update.
People are just not willing to change. Apple is a bit to get used to if you only have used windows. Linux, well, is only for the dedicated but is great once you know how to use it. take some time and switch people. you will be glad you did
Maybe If You Weren't A Mac User ...
by pmchefalo - 3/14/07 6:38 PM In reply to: Screw Windows by eddlogggYou wouldn't have to reformat your machine every year. Eight years of Mac use, eight years of reformats? That's the worst Mac experience I've ever heard of.
If you switch to Linux, perhaps you will be as successful?
Mac does not need the reformat, Windows does
by FrankWoolf - 3/15/07 5:58 AM In reply to: Maybe If You Weren't A Mac User ... by pmchefaloI think he meant that Windows needs to be reformatted every year or so and in eight years he has never done it on a Mac.
I have been using Macs since 1984 and only remember reformatting once and that was because I did something stupid to currupt the drive.
Ya Think?
by pmchefalo - 3/17/07 7:30 AM In reply to: Mac does not need the reformat, Windows does by FrankWoolfJust so YOU know, I know what he meant, and I see what he wrote.
And I have never had to reformat my own hard drive due to spyware, etc. while running Windows since 2.x.
So skill is skill, and dumb is dumb. Let's just leave it at that. I was "raised Mac", and am glad I left.
Hehe
by meisinscotland - 3/17/07 7:46 AM In reply to: Ya Think? by pmchefaloI choose to reformat my drive now often for a fresh Windows install, however when I was younger I often used to foul up my computers :$
Neither do I get junk on my machine because I am cautious 
(its not hard really)
No need
by meisinscotland - 3/17/07 7:52 AM In reply to: Screw Windows by eddlogggI like Windows, I like using it, and I wont stop. I wont change to Mac, or Linux, or w/e. I might eventually throw a Mac into my equation, but Windows is always gonna be there no matter what. Its cheap, easy and does what I want it to do and more. I feel I am in control of it, whereas with Mac I feel it is just a congregation of snobs who like to tell me my Windows is rubbish. WELL GUESS WHAT PEOPLE! Macintosh is not invincible/crashproof EITHER!
The first computer virus affected the 1984 Macs, so there.
O.o
by meisinscotland - 3/17/07 7:59 AM In reply to: PCs are in a different universe than Mac by jarvis9inDo you mean the prices charged to OEM installations? Well, when Windows 98 was released Microsoft upped the price charged to vendors doing OEM copies of 95. This was presumably so they would OEM Windows 98 instead and help people move onto the latest, most secure and most versatile of IE, which was feature full and quite rightfully kicked Netscape off the market.
I agree, sort of
by theboyofspewn - 2/16/07 4:51 AM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
I agree that third party vendors should have gotten up off their butts and updated their software to work with Vista before it came out.
But I cannot remove the fault from Microsoft entirely. With every previous version of Windows, Microsoft would send final release copies of the OS to all of the major third party vendors a full year before the release, and this would give the vendors time to update their software to be compatible. In the case of Vista, a final release copy was not available a year before the release, only buggy beta versions were available. Microsoft, quite simply, rushed this OS out the door because they were already behind their schedule.
Not a full excuse for the third party vendors, they could/should have downloaded the beta releases and developed new software off of them. At the same time, Microsoft should have made final release copies available for a time before actually releasing the OS. It is against Microsoft's prerogative to not have the majority of third party vendors software working on their OS before launch. All it does in the end is hurt Microsoft. And with all of the insane accusations flying right now about Vista, Microsoft should have been a little more wise about releasing their OS.sd
Vista compatibility
by floridajimmy - 2/16/07 5:08 AM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
Hello and welcome to the world of Bill Gates.
What better way to get a lot of people back to work than to change a good operating system into a nightmare of issues for the other people that have spent countless hours perfecting their work.
I have been working with computer systems since the old CP/M days and watched what should have been screaming fast machines brought to their knees by MICROSOFT.
Recently I signed up for the VISTA BETA and quickly reformatted my drive in favor of reinstalling my backup of XP that is still running 24/7 without a problem.
The real question is: since MICROSOFT has also known of available drivers for this hardware, why did they intentionally rewrite the system to be incompatible with them again? Does MICROSOFT have something against free enterprise and wish to retain a monopoly?
Sure seems that way, only MICROSOFT approved products will work, only MICROSOFT software is compatible, again,.
Alternatives like UBUNTU and other LINUX systems are looking more attractive everyday.
I build custom machines for clients and would it be right for me to spend days reworking an installation because of updated eye candy in the operating system?
I think NOT!
Please correct me I'm wrong.....
by Moonlight Gambler - 2/16/07 5:25 AM In reply to: Vista compatibility by floridajimmy.....but in the early days of Vista promotion didn't Microsoft boast that this would the most backward compatible of all their Windows versions?
msn messenger
by Jamborta - 3/14/07 4:43 PM In reply to: Please correct me I'm wrong..... by Moonlight Gamblereven msn messenger doesnt work properly in vista. which is i believe a microsoft product.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
