Windows Vista forum: Windows Vista Bugs

Every body that puts Vista in Pays me money to get it out it's wonderful for me.

After three weeks of screwing around with installing/removing/re-installing drivers, calling various vendors and following their contradictory instructions, exchanging brand new parts in my new computer with other so called "Vista Ready" parts; I am done, I am moving on... But wait. There is a bigger problem. Since I have "imported" my hard drives from my Win2000 workstation into Vista, I cannot take my data drives back to 2000 or XP. Vista security has locked it so they will only work on Vista. XP and 2000 see the drive as un-formatted drive.

What a mess! The only way to remove 100's of Gig of files back to XP or 2000 is to get a clean XP and use a network to transfer the data to another platform.

I have to tell you, the Apple commercials, albeit two decades late, ring a lot of truth to it.

The half life of computer equipment is about 2 years. Why do you expect anything from pre-2003 to synch with a two generations later OS? I try to go five years before I replace either of my computers today, but by then they are on their last legs, the keyboard on the notebook is shot, all sorts of registry errors go "bing" in the background, etc. I'm on my eighth and ninth computers, starting with PCs that had, I think, 16 Kilobytes of RAM. The newest machine has two gigs, and I imagine my next one will have 16 Gigs of ram. I don't expect anything to work from a couple of computer generations ago, and you shouldn't either. Do your vinyl records play on your I-pod or other MP3 player? Will your Betamax tape play on an HDCD Blu-Ray player? I don't think so. How about your 8-track or even your cassettes? Not on your life. Does film take pictures in a modern camera? The list is endless, and will become longer when non-HDTV television sets that get only over the air signals go blank by Congressional mandate in about a year.

You know, I remember when computers were almost useless machines, slow counters of 1's and 0's, used by geeks, constructed out of parts bought at Radio Shack. Back then (late 1960's) IBM salesmen could all write code in COBOL and FORTRAN. Computers did nothing useful for most of us, and the standard question (even to Steve Ballmer from his mother) was "Why would anyone want their own computer?" And then came Microsoft. Now computers do all sorts of wonderful things, and there are literally thousands of companies writing programs for PCs. And viruses, too, I might add. People write programs and viruses for PCs, rather than MACs, because the Microsoft operating system, whatever version, holds a 95% market share. They have made our life much easier, but you have to invest a little effort to get the payback.

There are all sorts of dumb ideas out there about how much Microsoft charges for their OS, lots of anger at Microsoft because it's so big. Truth is it doesn't charge monopoly prices, but rather prices so low (less than $50 per OEM machine, if you study their financial filings) that no one can afford to invest in the development and sale of a competitive product. That's why everybody else in the industry gets together to gang up on them, the Lilliputians trying to tie down Gulliver.

I am not sympathetic. Buy new peripherals.

When Apple made the switch to Intel processors, the vendors were given a nice slice of time and support to update. I owned a PowerPC Mac and recently switched to a new iMac, and so far, touch wood, the vendor software I use has been compatible due to Apple's excellent 'invisible' Rosetta (for those not in-the-know, check the link...) http://www.apple.com/rosetta/
Microsoft want to start realising that they're not the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to Operating Systems, and take a look at what's happening (at least in the UK) with the 'designers institution' that is QuarkXPress. Designers got sick of Quark not listening, responding and adapting to their needs and are dropping it in huge numbers for Adobe's Creative Suite. Take not Microsoft. Quark was the king. Now it's dying. Apple were the pretenders to the throne, and now?...

If it's a matter of assigning blame, unfortunately, I have to say the consumer is to blame. All these issues also happened when XP was released, although maybe not as much as with Vista. All of a sudden, even software programs like Easy CD Creator stopped working and we were forced to buy new versions that worked with XP (I've always thought of it as one big updgrade conspiracy :)) There are always issues with new products on the consumer markets. From the faulty Nintendo Wii controllers to the Xbox 360's that burned out after a few hours of use. Users upgrading to Vista should check that all their software has Vista specific drivers available from their product vendor's web sites before taking the leap to Vista. Your best bet to avoid these issues is to buy a Vista-ready PC or laptop, which, should, work fine with it. But, do make sure it has at the minimum 1 GB of RAM. Vista, even the most Basic version, doesn't work right with 512 MB of RAM, despite some vendors claims.

For those not wanting to buy new hardware, I would reccomend not upgrading for a while. Wait at least a year, until most vendors have updated their drivers, and then upgrade. Or, install Vista as a dual boot with XP (I'm not sure if that can be done, I haven't used Vista yet, but it could be done with earlier versions of Windows) and see what issues arise. In any case, best of luck.

I don't have a dog in this hunt... yet. However, my XP is running slower and is getting quicker to lock up. I find myself hoping it will hang in there until the Vista bugs are worked out. Other wise I'm not sure what I will do. I checked the block that said send your comments on whether Microsoft or third-party vendors was responsible for making sofware/drivers compatable with Vista. I really don't care. I expect them to work. That's why I would buy it in the first place. Didn't Sony expend the resources to make PS3 backward compatable. Why should we expect less from Microsoft?

Are you? Good god man. Why should I have to do all that crap just to keep my computer running? Why doesn't it just run? Unix has worked just fine since the '60's without all that nonesense! To me it sounds more like the problem is a lousy file system poorly configured by the o/s provider that destroys itself unless preventive measures are put in place to keep the o/s from being itself!!

I have worked on Linux of a number of flavors, QNX, MAC, and several versions of DOS and Windows (I overstepped by speaking for Unix) and by far, windows requires more attention to keep running than any of them for 2 primary reasons: First, the file systems that microsoft has developed over the years tend to fragment and corrupt, and second, of all the others mentioned except DOS and including Unix, it is a single user operating system that is now trying to be multiuser. The significance of this is that regular users have the ability to alter core system files, and this invariably leads to system damage. In Linux I am able to run multiple Xwindows sessions at the same time while also running multiple console sessions, all the while working in USER space and unable to damage the system. I do not EVER need to defragment the hard drive, it checks itself for errors in SECONDS during boot, averts file system damage also by using a journaling file system which works, and other than those things that take care of themselves, I don't really have to do much of anything unless I am working as root and digging into the system. I am sure it is more automated than Unix is, but it is also far more stable than windows will ever be.

I'm hearing the same kind of complaints that happened after Windows 95's first release came out, then Windows 98, then Windows XP, now Vista. The fact of the matter is that unless you have a compelling reason to upgrade I would not until at the minimum the first service pack is released. Save yourself some time and headaches, be patient, and eventually things will settle down. I'm a software developer on large software systems and I have never seen a software system, much less something far more complicated like an OS, be successfully deployed and up and running smoothly in the beginning.

Also, having done plenty of side PC jobs I know all about user ignorance and them screaming and yelling or calling you out for incredibly stupid things. Say like, "MY SOUND DOESN'T WORK ON THIS PC YOU BUILT!!!! *&@_#&@!(^3Y4". My response: "I will come out but if the problem is not my fault it's $35 for coming and $35 an hour." Haven't had one call yet that wasn't caused by user ignorance. In this particular case the fool had turned mute on. And I will not diagnose problems over the phone. The frustration level is too high.

Since its inception Windows has enjoyed the benefits of (essentially) a monopoly - no competitive pressure, vast income, 'if you don't like us, buy #2' -- only there was no #2.

Early on Steve Jobs said MS code was sloppy and loose - obviously - as Windows is up to several Gigs and the number of patches is beyond counting. (How many patches are really just patching earlier patches?)

If MS wasn't so OCD and anal-retentive, I might vote that suppliers should be responsible for updating drivers, but since MS jams new formats down customer throats (a la Word '07, etc.) and has NEVER offered a stable platform, it is unreasonable to require suppliers to try and keep up with MS's moving target. Especially when MS guards its 'code' almost as tightly as Coke does.

MS is damnably hostile to cooperation (Every distro of Linux I've run can handle MSWin/Dos files -- and Apple!) but after 23 years MS still can't recognize a Mac file or a Linux partition. That's HOSTILE. And stupid.

MS should be responsible for extending support on updating drivers and also to all users who have had their system blown by MS glitches or reset to some obscure default when the daily downloads finish - you know, those downloads that take priority over anything else you might want to do - they are worse than Symantec or McAfee.

Right now I dual boot with Xandros. To install it, together with Firefox, GIMP, Open Office and a dozen other FREE programs plus all drivers & etc., took less than 20 minutes UNATTENDED. A single-contact update checked and updated every application - including Xandros - in less than 2 minutes.

Total install time: less than a half-hour with my entire contribution being to do a couple of restarts.

And how long did your last Windows install take?

Bill, Mac is making you look bad on TV (admittedly not difficult) and Linux makes MS look totally inept.

If you can, do the drivers. And hurry, because Linux does Windows.

Oh your post is so nice to see.
I have been using Linux for years, including Redhat, Fedora, Suse, Knoppix, Debian, Damn Small Linux, Slackware and others, and while I will grant you that for a long time it was more difficult to use than windows, it has also always been more stable and much more capable and configurable.

I almost laugh when I see these little windows monkeys pretending they know something, with their little clean coats and businesslike manners spouting microsoft propaganda they memorized from a book and thinking that continual reboots are just normal for a computer. They won't hesitate to call me some kind of fanatic, yet they know so little about what makes a computer work I find I am unable to learn anything but rote procedures from them!

A computer is a complex machine that either has to be built on tightly controlled hardware like Mac's are, in which case they are quite stable and easy to use, or, as in the case of Linux, they require a modicum of understanding (not mere knowledge), or, as in the case of windows, they are just inherently broken and unstable.

What microsoft is great at is marketing and cutthroat business dealings. Their software, while nifty in some regards, is of limited worth and does not belong anywhere in the enterprise. It's place is on the desktop of users that don't want to spend money for a real machine and aren't interested in knowing how it works. But of course it doesn't work very well there either, because of its inherent tendency to self-destruct without constant intervention in the form of registry cleanings, file system defragmentations, security patches and the like.

I have not booted windows in well over a year, and now that their software is strictly permissionware that wants to phone home if I want to keep using it, they have no place in my house, and I am quickly removing them from important functions at work.

Have fun with your vista everybody. It looks like air pollution to me.

It is in all 3rd party vendor's best interest to make every attempt to provide compatibility within their applications when a new OS arrives on the market. Only the fittest will survive in the market!

If "photoham" chooses to switch to the Mac, the discovery of fewer overall vendor options will soon become painfully obvious.

Famous Saying Never ever purchase or lease software with 1.0 in it.

Microsoft designs software without the rest of the world in mind. This is not the first time Microsoft has done this. The problem with this whole situation is compatiblity issues. If you do not have backward or downward compatibility, you have just thrown away access to programs and data that is still productive and needed.

Microsoft's ultra secrecy and belated release of code is the problem to allow vendors to properly create the necessary interface to allow non-microsoft vendors.

The more tragic situation are the usefull fully functional proven legacy programs where the vendor no longer exits.

Microsoft is to blame for creating the environment. If Vista were a car or any other product, it would never have left the factory.


Instead of rewriting the entire source code from scratch -this would have required at least another year,

In my opinion, it's up to the Software and Driver manufacturers to upgrade their products to operate on any new system. I've been using Windows products for Fourteen Years and was able to use most of my hardware and software through all of my upgrades, except for a scanner that the manufacturer refused to create an upgrade for. Which by the way I dumped, along with the manufacturer.

mac pulled the very same trick when they switched to the intel chip; most programs still worked with more or less troubles and some did not. i blame mac for it, the same as i blame microsoft; the two think, they are king and everybody has to bow to them.

since the same mess happened with wista, it becomes very obvious, that the owners of the os systems are releasing them immediately upon completion, to recuperate the developement money faster. the hell with the inconvenience to consumers, that have to wait for the software makers, that seem to recieve the finished product on the same day it goes on sale, to update their programs.

is it the fear of copyright infringments or plain old greed of microsoft and apple that creates this situations ? i don't know, but i do know that both os systems are totally useless, if the software we need for work or hobbies, does not work any more. i still wait for photoshop elements to be issued in universal binary for the intel mac's.