Vista is....100% Stable? No

[mhbas0001]

I'm impressed. Not many people could muster as intelligent a response.

[InorganicMatter]

Anyone who says Vista is not stable has either screwed around with it, is trying to use it in a way that it was not intended, of is using bad brands of hardware (e.g.: Gigabyte, AMD, MSI, ASRock, etc.). I ran Vista on my current desktop before installing OSX86, and I am running Vista on my laptop. Small quirks aside (all of which I have researched and found will be fixed in SP1), it is the best Windows to date. If you use is normally, it is fast, good-looking, minimalistic, and highly reliable. I've got a barebones install on my Dell laptop: Vista, Office, and some school/work software. It's rock solid, gets great power management (battery life!), and works when I need it to. The only gripe I have is a small glitch caused by a bad Dell drive, which I keep getting promised a fix for but still don't have yet. Anyone who says XP is better either isn't living in reality, or is trying to treat Vista like the old NT and 9x operating systems (which is it not).

 

That's not saying Mac OS Leopard isn't better. I've been running Tiger on my desktop until this afternoon when I install Leopard. There is simply no comparison between Windows and Mac OS. Mac OS is so far and beyond past anything Microsoft can muster, it's really pathetic to see Microsoft lagging so far beind. Vista had just finally caught up with Tiger, and then gets blown away with Leopard. I run OS X almost exclusively on my desktop, booting into Windows for some gaming action when new games come out. I would run it on my laptop, but I have to use Windows-exclusive software for work and school (darn you Apple, and your lack of engineering software!).

 

Then, of course, there is Linux. Until last weekend, I laughed at Linux. I fought with Red Hat and Ubuntu several times and hated both. I installed SuSE on an old laptop yesterday and my tune changed. SuSE has come a long way since I last tried it, and I was very impressed. It offers solid features, is fast, stable, and although not the prettiest OS, is very light on system resource usage.

 

In summary, here's my current operating system standings:

Leopard > Vista > Tiger > SuSE > XP > Ubuntu

[Azurael]

'Minimalistic' is not a word I'd ever use to describe a modern OS. Especially not Vista!

 

And I strongly doubt that most of the computer industry is making bad, unstable hardware as you describe...

[robotskip]

Is any OS 100% stable? No, but I would say most OS are incredibly stable (That includes Tiger, Leopard, Vista, XP, Ubuntu 7.10, Fedora 8, OpenSUSE 10.3, FreeBSD 6, etc) He's making fun of the latest stories about the faults with Leopard. It's working, you skirts are getting all excited. Get over it.

 

It's amusing to see people like h2a say the "Apple is over-priced" is old and tired than we have people here running around saying how Windows always crashes and other similar things.

 

Oh, and for those saying XP is better than Vista.. well, you're retarded and please, please do not reproduce.

[apowerr]

are you kidding me. for one thing, vista is everything BUT backwards compatible with "any" hardware,

Where did I say backwards compatible... But since you brought it up... Vista is very compatible. There are literally billions of Processor/Motherboard/RAM/Video Card/Other PCIe Card combinations and Vista supports them all! (assuming they are fairly modern).

and the "overpriced apple hardware" thing is such an old and dated argument

Sure it's old, but it's not dated. Apple hardware is overpriced. Spec out a MacMini, iMac or Mac Pro: You can get a better PC cheaper (particularly FSB and Video Cards). Also, even the Macbook and Macbook Pro are starting to lag behind Dell and HP in terms of Price to Performance.

[PGHammer]

HeyNumberzz

 

You know you can't knock Vista because now the hackintosh people come out and defend it.

Stuffit Expander is third party software, the compression in Vista is as slow as hell and explorer takes a good 30 seconds to come up(longer sometimes). Also transferring data on Vista is slow, to a usb key it's as slow as USB1. It took Microsoft about 6 months to fix the USB issue and all the rest of you poor Vista users will have to wait for SP1 and hope it's fixed.

Paul Thurrot is on the defensive just like Microsoft is, it's like Apple are close to getting 50% market share or something. He and others need to learn not a go on the defensive to much when your favorite OS has 90% of the market.

 

However, let's be honest: whenever Microsoft loses *any* market share at anything, it's heralded as the Beginning Of The End. As far as the USB key issue; I have one of those USB keys, and quite a lot of it has to due to the speed mismatch between the USB2 High-Speed *standard* and the actual speed of the interface used by most USB keys (the same USB keys are no faster in other operating systems, so it's hardly a failing unique to Vista).

 

The compressed folders option in Windows Vista is, in fact, derived from third-party software (specifically, from WinZip); however, part of the thing about deriving a feature from a third party (especially when you're the 800-pound gorilla of operating systems, as Microsoft still is) you *cannot* be seen to kill your competitors (in short, there has to be a reason to add a third-party compression program, from the same source (WinZip 11 Pro) or a competing source (WinRAR or even 7-Zip), otherwise, hostile governments (the EU) will tilt at you like so many Don Quixotes).

 

Apple, on the other hand, has done a *very good job* at portraying itself as *David* competing against *Goliath*; this is even though it is not really competing against Goliath heads-up at all.

 

While the Hackintosh crowd has opened that wall to the point that the more adventurous of us can actually install Apple's operating system onto reasonably ordinary non-Apple PCs, the absolute *last* thing that Apple wants to really do is *bless* those efforts. Apple's spin is that they are, first, last, and *always*, a *hardware* company (that just happens to make a lot of cool software). In short, we're not really competing against Microsoft (who makes Office:mac, the productivity suite of choice for most OS X users) and *especially not* against the hundreds of Linux distributions for those same PCs (even though OS X' share of the total X86 marketplace is smaller than that of Linux as a whole, it is larger than any single distribution; it wants to *stand apart*).

 

However, at the same time, the Hackintosh crowd is also exposing a rather nasty factoid that Apple's spinmeisters would love to have kept hidden: OS X is no more secure at its base than any other operating system on the same hardware. It's an operating system designed by human beings, and like any other operating system designed by human beings, it will have issues. The bugs in OS X are *different* from those in Windows Vista (understandable, as the two operating systems have different structures) and both have their share of backward-compatibility woes (in case you have forgotten, any application that is based on Unsanity's APE won't work in Leopard; that nasty problem is shaping up to be far larger than the largest such similar issue with Vista). However, as someone that runs both operating systems (and on the same hardware) both operating systems have their strong points (and both have their weaknesses).

[InorganicMatter]

'Minimalistic' is not a word I'd ever use to describe a modern OS. Especially not Vista!

 

And I strongly doubt that most of the computer industry is making bad, unstable hardware as you describe...

 

Quite the contrary - Vista and Leopard are minimalistic in that they are self-sufficient enough to work alone. Neither need extra software that slows your computer down, like Firewall, Antivirus, Backup, Media Players, etc. Alll the extra software bundled with them is a short tem loss, long term gain.

 

As for your hardware comment - you need only look at the Hackintosh scene to see what I mean. What's the number one headache on kernel support? AMD CPUs. What are the biggest motherboard headaches right now? nFORCE chipsets, and Gigabyte/MSI branded boards.

[apowerr]

AMD CPUs.

I dunno, prior to the C2D AMD was making the better processors. As far as the Motherboards go, I won't argue. Personally I like aBit or ASUS.

[InorganicMatter]

I dunno, prior to the C2D AMD was making the better processors. As far as the Motherboards go, I won't argue. Personally I like aBit or ASUS.

AMD has made good CPUs for three years out of the fourty years of their miserable existance. With the exception of K8, their CPUs are complete garbage, and their new "Phenom" {censored} is looking to be no exception to this trend. AMD got lucky for three years, and it's a simple as that.

[Azurael]

As for your hardware comment - you need only look at the Hackintosh scene to see what I mean. What's the number one headache on kernel support? AMD CPUs. What are the biggest motherboard headaches right now? nFORCE chipsets, and Gigabyte/MSI branded boards.

Hang on... So your logic is that because OS X lacks drivers for hardware, and because OS X's kernel checks CPU ID strings to make sure the CPU is an Intel chip, it must be said hardware and CPUs that's causing Windows to be unstable... You really are a nutcase, aren't you?

 

You've also got a completely different idea what the word 'minimalistic' means to everybody else who speaks English.

Minimalism, according to the dictionary is "Use of the fewest and barest essentials or elements, as in the arts, literature, or design." - i.e. DOS is Minimalistic. BeOS may be considered minimalistic. The Linux fimrware on my router may be considered minimalistic. Vista is certainly NOT minimalistic. My Vista Ultimate X64 install is using 10.0GB for the Windows directory alone. That's more than a ten-fold increase over my previous stripped out XP install.

 

And headaches from Gigabyte/MSI boards? ASRock boards may be cheap, but they're amongst the simplest, no-fuss, BIOS-bug free boards I've ever used, and I've been using Gigabyte boards on and off for years and they've always been amongst the most reliable. I've got no idea where you got your completely dejected ideas about the computer industry from, and I'm not sure I want to either!

 

And AMD didn't 'get lucky' - some of the worlds largest scientific clusters are based on AMD Opteron CPUs, which share their K8/K10 architecture with desktop Athlons. The massive scalibility and reliability of the architecture far exceeds anything possible with Intel's dated FSB holding back Xeon scalability. K7 wiped the floor with Pentium 4 in most cases, too, so I wouldn't say that it was just with K8 that they 'got lucky'. They are going through a bad patch, performance wise, for single/dual CPU systems versus Intel at the moment, but that doesn't make them a bad company, and it certainly doesn't say anything about the reliability of their CPUs...

[waradmin]

I am sick of all the Windows Vista fanboys, especially given this forum is called "Insanely Mac".

 

First let me say that since 1994 I was a Windows User (and only 5 1/2 years old). In 1996 I got my first PC, a Packard Bell with Windows 95 and a 75MHz processor. I didn't get my first Mac (iBook) until 2004, and purchased another iBook in 2005, and my Macbook in 2007. My main system was still always a Windows Machine, until I got my Macbook.

 

I said that to show that I was in no way a Apple fan boy FTW, I used Windows, all the time. My iBook(s) was/were just something I wanted, and rarely used. I own a legit retail copy of Windows Vista Ultimate (something many people here probably don't really have) and have it installed on Boot Camp and on my custom Pentium D desktop. And let me say that Windows Vista is NOT the stable, lovely operating system the fan boys tout it out to be.

 

If you are a non power user, aka a exclusive web browsing email checking person you will think that Vista is fine and dandy. However if you are the power user who looks to push their system to the limits you will realize that Vista is full of built in road-blocks which make it hard to do. Having to adjust security settings for an executable so it emulates Windows XP SP 2 environment is something that just sets me back and turns me off to the OS. Recently when trying to use Motorola Phone Tools in Vista, I had to do just that to even get it to function.

 

Then take the fact that on my system: PD 3.2GHz, 4GB RAM, 256MB 256-Bit Video Card, I still get much worse game performance compared to XP, and you have a OS that really is a total failure.

 

Leopard on the other hand has had 99% of my tiger applications smoothly work on it, with only a small few giving me troubles. It never crashes on me, never never never. 3 people I know have told me they are getting macbooks after I told them about how spyware and viruses aren't an issue with the Operating System.

 

Vista sucks, plain and simple.

[realfolkblues]

I'm running leopard and have not had any crashing. Except Office 2008 beta, but thats a beta so i dont think it's related.

[scj312]

If you are a non power user, aka a exclusive web browsing email checking person you will think that Vista is fine and dandy. However if you are the power user who looks to push their system to the limits you will realize that Vista is full of built in road-blocks which make it hard to do. Having to adjust security settings for an executable so it emulates Windows XP SP 2 environment is something that just sets me back and turns me off to the OS. Recently when trying to use Motorola Phone Tools in Vista, I had to do just that to even get it to function.

These aren't security settings, they change the system libraries that the app uses to use ones in previous versions of Windows.

--

When OS X came out, OS 9 software wouldn't operate unless it was in an OS 9 environment (either booted or in Classic), since they are totally different systems.

 

Windows uses the NT core now, which is totally different from using MS-DOS. Completely different systems, yet software from Windows 1.0 AND MS-DOS STILL work?

[Numberzz]

These aren't security settings, they change the system libraries that the app uses to use ones in previous versions of Windows.

--

When OS X came out, OS 9 software wouldn't operate unless it was in an OS 9 environment (either booted or in Classic), since they are totally different systems.

 

Windows uses the NT core now, which is totally different from using MS-DOS. Completely different systems, yet software from Windows 1.0 AND MS-DOS STILL work?

Yes, also known as a security fault.

[vbetts]

Vista is XP with a dumb ram hogging interface garbage called Aero (although rather good looking) and a few minor apps that MS turns into a ENORMOUS deal

 

Vista has way better memory management than what XP did. But Aero isn't just an interface though, it runs on Direct X. Vista was actually built from the ground up, besides the basic NT core. The only thing I can say I don't use in Vista because the way they did it was so crappy, is probably media center. That's what Media Portal is for though.

[robotskip]

Vista is XP with a dumb ram hogging interface garbage called Aero (although rather good looking) and a few minor apps that MS turns into a ENORMOUS deal

Aero uses the GPU -- did someone say the word 'dumb' ? I think it was incorrectly directed. Oh, and it's just XP with a new interface, right? I guess the fact that they rewrote the networking/audio/memory/print systems, added a new driver model, rewrote the bootloader, etc are all available in XP, right?

 

You really shouldn't make things up, it makes you look.. what was the word you said, dumb?

[SDRacer48]

Most people know that I recently wrote a page or so saying that Paul Thurrot was lying when he was saying that Leopard was a service pack. Now he has changed his website to say the following:

Now, that made me think that Vista had no bugs, glitches, or slowdowns of any kind. But then I remembered the good times.

Good times, good times.

 

No operating system is 100% stable...

 

I have personally had Windows, Linux, and OS X and OS 9 crash on me. Most of the time the crashes were because of my own fault...

 

Most crashes that people encounter on any operating system are the user's own fault...

[scj312]

Yes, also known as a security fault.

That's why they removed the 16-bit subsystem from the 64-bit version of Windows.

 

People need to stop complaining about compatability. With billions of programs, every install must have at least 50mb of bloat just used for appcompat purposes. OS X doesn't have as many programs available as Windows does.

[Numberzz]

That's why they removed the 16-bit subsystem from the 64-bit version of Windows.

 

People need to stop complaining about compatability. With billions of programs, every install must have at least 50mb of bloat just used for appcompat purposes. OS X doesn't have as many programs available as Windows does.

Think that might have something to do with the market share?

[mhbas0001]

Think that might have something to do with the market share.

 

Of course.

[Numberzz]

Of course.

Why thank you for backing up my point.

[mhbas0001]

No problem.

[Azurael]

Aero uses the GPU -- did someone say the word 'dumb' ? I think it was incorrectly directed. Oh, and it's just XP with a new interface, right? I guess the fact that they rewrote the networking/audio/memory/print systems, added a new driver model, rewrote the bootloader, etc are all available in XP, right?

 

You really shouldn't make things up, it makes you look.. what was the word you said, dumb?

 

But how many of these things actually mean anything to the end user or really impact their experience of using the computer? None...

 

The f**ed up Wireless zeroconf so it's even more confusing and less reliable than it was in XP. Profile management is now a PITA, and my Vista machines are now utterly hopeless at automatically connecting to wireless networks and before you blame a specific equipment provider, with several different wireless cards, and on several different wireless networks.

 

Moving the audio subsystem into user space has turned even the most powerful soundcards into the equivalents of 'dumb' HDA codecs with all audio processing done in software.

 

Superfetch makes a negligable difference to application launch times, yet slows down any memory intensive app for the first few minutes because it's really bad at giving up RAM when apps need it.

 

The new bootloader, which is meant to be 'more interoperable' with other OSes is utterly hopeless. On several occasions, on several different machines, I've now had it inexplicable corrupt itself and refuse to reinstall with the 'repair' option from the DVD. It doesn't play nice with other bootloaders and f**ks up if it's chainloaded by another bootloader - it has to be the primary bootloader with other OSes loaded from it. What was wrong with XP's functional, easy to configure loader? Nothing.

 

x64 Vista will no longer allow unsigned driver installation without the user manually selecting 'Disable Driver Signing Enforcement' at every boot, which doesn't stop malware developer buying a signature and signing drivers, but it does stop independent developers like Daemon tools having an x64 version that works with the newest Vista KBs installed.

 

That's what pisses me off about Vista. They've changed lots of things about XP that worked perfectly and broken them, and ignored some of the biggest problems present in every NT version. It's change for the sake of change, and it's badly implemented. Sure, it's better than most previous Windows releases in that it was stable from the get-go, but to me, this is WinME mk.2.

 

And best of all, after less than a week since install, since I changed my mobo, I've lost the ability to manipulate folders properly in Explorer, again. I can't move them. I can't name new folders. I can copy a folder from A-B and that's it. Anything else has to be done from the command line. I'm not re-installing again, and if I do, it will be XP or 2003 x64. To hell with DX10.

[waradmin]

These aren't security settings, they change the system libraries that the app uses to use ones in previous versions of Windows.

--

When OS X came out, OS 9 software wouldn't operate unless it was in an OS 9 environment (either booted or in Classic), since they are totally different systems.

 

Windows uses the NT core now, which is totally different from using MS-DOS. Completely different systems, yet software from Windows 1.0 AND MS-DOS STILL work?

 

True. Have you tried to play Warcraft 1 on a new computer? Its hilarious what happens, the game is over right away because the speed of the game is based on system clock speed. Once you start a new game, it is over in about 3 seconds, you lose. (off topic I know).

 

Vista has way better memory management than what XP did. But Aero isn't just an interface though, it runs on Direct X. Vista was actually built from the ground up, besides the basic NT core. The only thing I can say I don't use in Vista because the way they did it was so crappy, is probably media center. That's what Media Portal is for though.

Vista makes terrible use of memory, and their ability to use a flash drive as memory is a total laughing matter (it makes no difference). When I would test Longhorn, the "Change Start Menu Appearence" window still referenced the XP Menu (aka it said Windows XP on the 'start' menu image). It doesn't seem ground-up to me.

[apowerr]

Ok seriously the bottom line is that OS X has to be more stable! Buy a Sun Workstation with Solaris, it is really stable too! Why? Because when you have one company making the Hardware, Operating System and Software things are going to work out.

When I would test Longhorn, the "Change Start Menu Appearence" window still referenced the XP Menu (aka it said Windows XP on the 'start' menu image).

When was this? Beta 1? It definently wasn't like that in RC1 or RTM.