Windows Vista: Windows Vista Bugs
Windows Vista Bugs
by photoham - 2/12/07 11:26 AMI have been a faithful Windows user since 3.0 and I really though that nothing could be worse than Windows ME. Vista in the early stages is worse. Windows ME had its problems, but you could get support/help from 3rd party vendors. Upgrading to Vista has been a real challenge... and I feel like I'm walking through this maze all alone. So many software and hardware items don't work with Vista and third party vendors have not developed a fix yet. Virus protection... No, AOL security... NO, ATT security suite... No. Problems that were none existent yesterday are here today. The drivers for my video card, cd-rom drive and D-link usb adapter worked yesterday. Now, nothing but problem messages. I've always fought the good PC vs. MAC fight and found the MAC commercials to be amusing. But, I've never given thought to joining the MAC legions until now. If Vista wasn't ready for a release that would be seamless for the upgrade crowd, It should have been noted. And the Vista Advisor is another matter for another conversation. Why give the green light to a system for upgrade and then present you with a different reality post upgrade?
Microsoft vs third-party vendors...
by John.Wilkinson
- 2/12/07 1:48 PM
In reply to: Windows Vista Bugs by photoham
The thing to keep in mind here is that Microsoft is responsible for Vista, not third-party software and drivers.
* AOL doesn't work? Yell at Time Warner for not updating their software to work with the latest OS.
* The AT&T security suite doesn't install? Yell at AT&T for not updating their software to work with the latest OS.
* Your video card doesn't work properly? Yell at Nvidia/ATI/Intel/SiS for not updating their drivers to work with the latest OS.
Vista has been in the beta stages for quite some time, and readily available to the third-party developers. Microsoft can't help it if others sit on their butts and neglect updating their software until long after Vista ships. Vista has some known problems, but don't blame Microsoft for the problems of others.
John
P.S. Just for reference, there are millions of people with computers that cannot be seemlessly upgraded to XP due to compatibility and/or performance issues. If it were Microsoft's job to ensure seemless upgrades before releasing the OS, XP would still be in Microsoft's storage closet, waiting for its debut.
Totally agree, John
by mopscare42 - 2/12/07 3:18 PM In reply to: Microsoft vs third-party vendors... by John.Wilkinson
It is not the fault of Microsoft that the computer, hardware and software venders dragged their feet for the past 6 months with Vista.
I spent 90 minutes on the phone this morning with HP trying to get an answer about drivers and sofware for an HP scanner. All I wanted was to see if they could give me an approximate time when they would be availble.
I was transferred to a total of 7 people and never got the answer. The only lady I could really understand and spoke English said they weren't trained on Vista yet?? what is that telling you.
One person tried to sell me a new scanner. Another said it was a Microsoft issue and another even gave me a Microsoft phone number saying they had to supply the driver and software for a HP scanner? Ya right!
Vista is a great program the harware and software venders is the problem.
(NT) I agree 100% Good post after the negatives!
by stonehkm - 2/12/07 3:32 PM In reply to: Totally agree, John by mopscare42softwarr
by mohathum - 2/16/07 10:49 PM In reply to: (NT) I agree 100% Good post after the negatives! by stonehkmsir,
some software not supported in vista,how to down lode the vista compatible software
You bet your a@# Micro$oft is to blame!
by wenid - 3/14/07 6:27 PM In reply to: (NT) I agree 100% Good post after the negatives! by stonehkmThe most remearkable thing here is how determined some people are to blinker themselves to Micro$oft's shortcomings. I suppose it's hard to admit to yourself that you've made the wrong "operating system" choice when it has cost you so much over the years.
Yes, you can argue that third parties aren't doing enough, but if it's all on them, why haven't we seen this degree of problems with other operating systems? Micro$oft, deliberately or otherwise, makes it difficult for third parties to develop and/or release their drivers and other software. Micro$oft (yet again) brought a product to market that was clearly not ready for release, just so they didn't miss another arbitrary deadline. Micro$oft is working for its shareholders, not its customers. The shareholders want money. The customers have money. In the most extreme cases, the customers are all but enslaved by Micro$oft.
This may evoke some harsh responses, but I'm pretty sure that it'll mostly be a case of "truth hurts".
microsoft bugs......
by juniperbug - 3/14/07 6:39 PM In reply to: You bet your a@# Micro$oft is to blame! by wenidI agree but will go one step farther. Microsoft never make sure their software programs are completely compatable or even easy to install. I crashed my computer trying to install even service pack 2 so I could upgrade, I don't think Micro will reimburse me for the fixit shop costs. Not all users are techs. They should spend more time making sure things work and quit worrying whether they are top dog and have to get in ahead of any one else. They seem to have bugs in all their programs????juniperbug
Microsoft is NOT to blame
by gene5746 - 3/14/07 7:19 PM In reply to: microsoft bugs...... by juniperbugIt amazes me how much the industry has blinded itself on the real issues by slapping at Microsoft every chance there is. I'm not a MS fanatic but I do use their worthwhile products, as well as those from many other companies. I also use Linux. I have been using Vista 32 & 64 since RC1 & have had almost NO trouble. No install problems & NO hardware problems. Everyone keeps focusing on how to keep windows compatible with the existing software and hardware & this is where I feel we are "missing the boat". For those people who want to keep their old, outdated and underfeatured software/hardware, MS (& many others) are ready to sell millions of copies of older versions since all the R&D is finished - it's all profit. What we as an industry SHOULD be focused on is the power user & bleeding edge enthusiasts. I wouldn't spend millions of dollars to keep my product compatible with people who aren't even spending their money anyway (aside from the cost of the OS). If you WANT the old hardware and programs... KEEP XP, or whatever other outdated version of OS works with it. I SPEND MONEY! I want someone to remember ME. I don't care if the old hardware & software don't work with the new OS (I wouldn't keep the seats from my old car to put in my new one!), I want new hardware & software! I want more features & gadgets. Why am I among the forgotten sufferers when I SPEND money for the NEW? We as a society still expect fast food from our PC's (a burger for a buck - get REAL!) I run 4 Dell Precision 380's with 3GHz dual cores & 2GB or more ram; two are 32-bit & two are 64-bit (besides our servers); I use Raid 0 for speed on the boot drive & Raid 5 on the data drive. I am the kind of person your companies want to sell to yet I'm the guy you think of LAST, if at all. My anti-virus works fine with Vista. My Roxio works fine! My Paint Shop works fine! So do all my other apps; if an app doesn't work I buy a new one - I don't blame MS, at least THEY thought of me (a little bit). Just for the record, I have three Dimension 8400's that have been running XP since Dell released them & they have NEVER crashed. If your company has 1000 PCs & can't afford all new... Use hardware firewalls to protect them (it's cheaper) & keep what you've got. The other vendors will NOT make an effort to make their products compatible if we keep screaming at MS; why should they - you keep giving them money not to?
Yes yes yes!!
by skaaman - 3/14/07 8:01 PM In reply to: Microsoft is NOT to blame by gene5746Welcome to the era of 256MB graphics cards and 2GB configurations minimum. XP was 5 years old and it's nice to have a new OS that can finally begin to take full advantage of the outrageous hardware performance gains made in that timeframe. Vendors have had plenty of time to prepare for Vista and they have clearly dropped the ball. Microsofts only blame is not applying stricter standards to upgrade adviser and supplying support and contact information for the vendors of those drivers.
Drivers for their own products.
by c2cabco - 3/15/07 5:57 AM In reply to: Yes yes yes!! by skaamanI am the "proud" owner of a MICROSOFT keyboard w/ fingerprint reader. I have installed Vista Business 64-bit on a new machine I have built. Still no 64-bit drivers for the fingerprint reader. This IS a case where Microsoft has dropped the ball. Dont you think they should provide drivers to make sure their own products work?
You are Sooo right!
by Gonzo0967 - 3/15/07 8:20 AM In reply to: Drivers for their own products. by c2cabcoWe've been using XP in our company's computers for a long time and try to keep our systems updated as best as we can. We were using MS Office 2003 on XP with no problems. Now, we got two new laptops with vista to test the software out and guest what? Not even talking about our third party software having problems, but Office 2003! Thats a Microsoft program. I've had to reinstalled it on this laptop 3 times and on the other laptop, I just reinstalled it a second time. When you call tech support, they simply say "Upgrade to Office 2007", what in the world is that? THey knew what they were doing. They knew if they come up with a new OS thats not compatible with anything, eventually they would make more money on the other MS program as well. They are doing it to all their programs. For example, MS Money. If you own an older version of MS Money basic and try to upgrade to MS Money 2007 basic, it tells you that you can't convert your files. That you have to buy the more expensive Money 2007 Pro. They knew what they were doing. Now, if you buy a new computer, you can't even get XP on it. They all come with Vista. What about those loyal XP customers that just want to upgrade hardware? And this is where I blame computer manufacturers (of course being pressured by MS). When a new OS is out, the cunsumer should have the option to choose what OS they want on their hardware. Not being forced to buy Vista thats not compatible with nothing. I may use Vista at work, but I'm sticking with XP at home. I'm not buying all new hardware if the old one still works.
Micro$oft office xp standard 2002
by mezafg - 3/15/07 9:28 AM In reply to: You are Sooo right! by Gonzo0967Outlook freezes on about 10% of e-mails with attachments. But I can log on to MSN and open the e-mail and attachments. Micro$oft support tell me to upgrade to office 2007.
RE: Office XP Standard
by H41N - 3/18/07 8:55 AM In reply to: Micro$oft office xp standard 2002 by mezafgUpgrade to 2007 or at the very least 2003. Office XP was released *prior* to the retail XP operating system, making it approximately 6+ years old. With two upgrades released for the app between then and now, it would be common sense to come at least halfway closer if not fully. Most people would have logically done so whether their version of Office XP was encountering problems or not.
People need to realize that they can't expect to cling to a favorite version or piece of software forever while everything else hard and software-wise moves forward around it. There comes a time where time marches on. Your options: remain stationary and risk the issues you've mentioned, or move forward with the rest of us.
Hello World
by gceo - 3/19/07 11:13 AM In reply to: Micro$oft office xp standard 2002 by mezafgMy name is Bill. Send me more money.
Exactly right.. I have found that to be true as well.
by consaka - 3/15/07 4:22 PM In reply to: Drivers for their own products. by c2cabcoOnly in my case its windows xp 64 bit edition. I see they have drivers out for xp 32 and vista 64 and 32. wish I could remember what that was for.. probably their debut software for antivirus.
I had to work on a vista laptop brand new and I must say I was distinctly disapointed.. Felt like I was starting over cold turkey with windows after working in DOS for years.. All that fluff on top is defintily not worth it. At least XP let you go back to classic menues and stuff. So far Vista's classic options are too few and dont really look all that classic. And that's with 2 gigs of ram and a nice dualcore processor.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
