Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Admits Vista Has "High Impact Issues"
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Jan 22, 2007 08:50 PM
from the surprising-no-one dept.
from the surprising-no-one dept.
EggsAndSausage writes "Microsoft has granted, in a roundabout way, that Vista has 'high impact issues.' It has put out an email call for technical users to participate in testing Service Pack 1, due out later this year, which will address 'regressions from Windows Vista and Windows XP, security, deployment blockers and other high impact issues.' It's hard to know whether to be reassured that Service Pack 1 is coming in the second half of 2007, and thus that there is a timeframe for considering deployment of Vista within businesses, or to be alarmed that Microsoft is unleashing an OS on the world with 'high impact issues' still remaining." In other news, one blogger believes that Vista is the first Microsoft OS since Windows 3.1 to have regressed in usability from its predecessor (he kindly forgives and dismisses Windows ME). And there's a battle raging over the top 10 reasons to get Vista or not to get Vista.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft Admits Vista Has "High Impact Issues"
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 520 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Using Vista for a bit (Score:3)
Re:Using Vista for a bit (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.theinternetisboring.net/)
Re:Using Vista for a bit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Using Vista for a bit (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://blog.mzzt.net/)
Re:Using Vista for a bit (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://doghole.blogspot.com/)
Oh, and basing your post on RC2 (a "release candidate" - not the final version, if that needs to be said) doesn't help, either.
Re:Using Vista for a bit (Score:5, Informative)
Also, I suspect that upgraders who paid for a multi-year license for their Antivirus software are going to be in for a bit of a surprise.
Re:Using Vista for a bit (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.kibbee.ca/)
Re:Using Vista for a bit (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://randomcoolzip.blogspot.com/)
It's all about the DRM, you see. MS has to be seen to control the entire transport path, to reassure its media partners that they can safely release their wares for Vista. I think I even read a story here recently that a VAR wound up replacing the disc burning software they normally bundled with the default Vista program, because their regular software had such serious issues. What do you want to be MS made them a pretty good offer to stick with the MS solution?
Re:Using Vista for a bit (Score:4, Funny)
(Last Journal: Friday December 05 2003, @03:51PM)
It's because if the hackers gain control over the laser, they can hold your computer ransom. Or at least your Puff^h^h^h^hP Diddy CD. You wouldn't know it, but the Iraq war is entirely because Osama Bin Laden is holding Dick Cheney's autographed Toni Braxton CD for ransom.
Or maybe that's just what they want you to think....
Pfft GUIs - you can keep 'em (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.milksucks.com/ | Last Journal: Monday September 15 2003, @12:30PM)
rm
echo eject >
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/magic/man2html/4/cdfs [bell-labs.com]
Of course it's an upgrade (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Wednesday January 31 2007, @02:25AM)
Re:Using Vista for a bit (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are missing the point. If I need to use specific software, and it runs easier on XP than on Vista, or runs on XP and not on Vista, then Vista is not an upgrade for my purposes, and there is no reason to purchase Vista. Whether or not Vista is an overall superior OS compared to XP doesn't matter for my purposes if Vista is inferior for my specific software needs.
I could be wrong, though. Others may disagree.
Re:Using Vista for a bit (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Using Vista for a bit (Score:4, Insightful)
Just stick with XP until Vista SP one, the same way one should have stuck with 2k (not talking about home users here, though 2k was good even for home use) until XP SP1, etc.
For the OEMs, well...they get Vista for 5$ over the price of the raw hardware, so I guess its consolation. Or just don't buy OEM. For the rest for whom all these options are not possible...well, they're allowed to complain I guess.
Re:Using Vista for a bit (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.milksucks.com/ | Last Journal: Monday September 15 2003, @12:30PM)
Re:Using Vista for a bit (Score:5, Informative)
(http://gazonk.org/~eloj/ | Last Journal: Tuesday June 07 2005, @01:18PM)
> Exactly how is it less usable then XP. They pretty much both work.
I think the first post on this page [hardforum.com] (check out the images) summarize it pretty succinctly:
Want to cross our DRM? Pay our toll! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://gazonk.org/~eloj/ | Last Journal: Tuesday June 07 2005, @01:18PM)
I'm not a strong believer in the "Microsoft has no real choice" hypothesis. I don't think MS need the RI/MPAA members of the world as much as they need MS. First of all, MS are a part of, and presumably very active, member of the AACS licensing agency. I know this because it says so in the specifications. Maybe the other members could block them from implementing it, but I consider that unlikely (and why would they want too?).
Secondly, and the real point, MS rule basically every desktop in the world already. Do you believe that computes to leverage FOR or AGAINST Microsoft when negotiation with the MPAAs? Truly, the MPAAs would be at the mercy of MS. "Here's the DRM we're willing of giving you in Vista, be glad you're getting as much!".
I'm more a follower of the "Microsoft is doing this for their own, lock-in based, reasons". The history of Microsoft is the history of vendor lock-in and market control through technology.
Maybe MS really want the RIAAs and MPAAs on their side in the fight against the iPod? Maybe if MS give the RIAAs and the MPAAs what they want. One back scratched for another... If I didn't despise the MPAAs of the world, I'd raise a warning about MS long documented betrayalish ways, but I do.
BTW. Do you know what company I didn't see stamped on the first page of the AACS specifications?
Apple.
Lesser members perhaps. Now who is in control?
Re:Want to cross our DRM? Pay our toll! (Score:4, Insightful)
But the question is, how much of the MPAA's market are PCs responsible for? I don't know, but I get the sense that it's not a terribly large percentage. I at least hear a lot of "I'm sick of the movie theatres; it's so much better to watch movies on a home theatre", and I doubt the people saying that are watching them on their computers.
Then, think about what if they didn't support it. They'd have to have something somewhere saying "Vista doesn't support watching HD-DVD or Blue-Ray disks because the MPAA won't let us." But who do you think consumers would blame? Is the average person rational enough to go out, study the issue, and see that MS was the one being reasonable? Doubt it. I bet they'd go "Stupid Windows! Why can't I watch my Blue-ray?" This would leave, say, Apple a nice window in which to say, "hey, we'll capitulate to the MPAA's demands", and now MS is hurting even more. (They're vulnerable enough already. And I don't think it's terribly unreasonable to expect that Apple would take advantage of that situation, though I doubt they'd implement all the restrictions MS has. Apple has already shown willingness to capitulate to some extent with iTunes, and I think Jobs is shrewd enough to notice an opportunity to steal market share like that would provide.)
I'm more a follower of the "Microsoft is doing this for their own, lock-in based, reasons". The history of Microsoft is the history of vendor lock-in and market control through technology.
Maybe MS really want the RIAAs and MPAAs on their side in the fight against the iPod? Maybe if MS give the RIAAs and the MPAAs what they want. One back scratched for another... If I didn't despise the MPAAs of the world, I'd raise a warning about MS long documented betrayalish ways, but I do.
I do think this is a good point though. I don't really buy that MS is in the clear either. They certainly seem over-eager to please to me. Surely they could have put up SOME resistance to DRM. (I just don't think they could have removed it entirely.)
I guess what my feelings are on this is, yeah, MS is at fault here, but at the same time, even if they were run by totally principled, upstanding people who shared the
it's a euphemism. (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.atomjax.com/)
I'm sure they're using the phrase "High impact" in much the same way as the NTSB.
Win XP wins out over VISTA... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is way too expensive to be a business user and wind up "testing" a new OS with no easy way to regress.
Win XP Pro is going to be an option to install on most PCs for a long long time.
Prepare for the fasted ever Service Pack (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.sympato.ch/)
The fact that so much people are thinking just like us "I'll wait Vista mature a bit, at least until SP1, before I give it a try" is the exact reason why Microsoft is going to rush out the fastest Service Pack you're ever seen.
One blogger? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when does "one blogger"'s view qualify as "news"? I'm sure at least "one blogger" thinks that OSX sucks or at least "one blogger" thinks that Linux sucks. Would that qualify as "news" as well?
The quality of the "news stories" that slashdot carries has gone downhill drastically in recent months.
Re:One blogger? (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday October 06 2006, @06:40PM)
"Inbuilt undelete" (Score:4, Funny)
Or, depending on how you look at it, inbuilt rolling backup. Every time you make a change to a file or delete it, Windows keeps the previous version. As a result, the "oh !@#$ I just overwrote my entire PhD with Document1" feeling can be quickly assuaged. Read more...
But the read more link is broken. Maybe they need to restore it with undelete.
This sounds exciting... I've always wanted a filesystem that would act like CVS with each save. I don't know if this is doing quite that, but it's intriguing at least. (I think there's a Linux filesystem called Elephant that does something like this, but I haven't looked into it much.
(The other thing that I wonder why other file systems haven't adopted is NTFS's alternate streams. They seem like they could be really useful for some stuff...)
Re:"Inbuilt undelete" (Score:4, Insightful)
NTFS's alternate streams (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday May 05 2006, @11:53PM)
(For those that don't know: a file can have multiple bodies, and a directory can have file bodies too. You can do "notepad C:\WINDOWS:holycrap.txt" to put a stream on the WINDOWS directory.)
Viruses hide in alternate streams. Backup software forgets alternate streams. Web servers and browsers forget alternate streams. FTP servers and clients forget alternate streams.
When next you are running out of disk space, perhaps it is an alternate stream! The file size shown in Windows explorer does not show the alternate streams.
If you really want this load of crap on Linux though... see the user_xattr mount option, which you may set via
I can keep going... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday May 05 2006, @11:53PM)
The notation used on Windows is... interesting. If you are in D:\ with a file called C, does C:foo refer to a stream on D:\C or to a file called foo in the current directory of the C drive?
On a Linux or MacOS system, all characters except '/' and '\0' are valid in filenames, so we have nothing to spare. No, you can't steal the ':'.
Today I can copy a file with the dd command. I can copy a file using the cat command and shell redirection. Multi-forked files would lose data.
It looks like you need a directory... why not use one? This is how MacOS X apps work.
There are fundamental difficulties with on-disk data structures related to fragmentation and bloat. You add complexity for little gain.
Do these extra streams get permission bits? Can you solidly justify your choice?
Can a stream have a stream? If not, why the limitation?
Can I move a stream from one file to another? Can I move a stream to be just a regular file? Can I move a file into another file, to become an extra stream?
Why should everything become more complex (buggy, slow, insecure, confusing, etc.) for this barely-useful feature?
Seriously? (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday October 18, @07:35PM)
Apparently the "Folders" tool on the left is too hard to use. Take a look at his picture, if he just clicked on the "Folders" link on the left he would have a nice, easy to navigate tree right there. Yes, the address bar's drop-down is a sort of history. As for the web sites, mine seem to spawn a web browser (Firefox even) just fine.
Again, the author shows his ignorance. Just click on the breadcrumb of where you want to go, ta-da! you're now there. Granted it's not a button, but it's infinitely more useful. Not only can I go up one level with one click I can go up n levels with one click.
This one I will give him is a wash. The built in search rocks. And personally, I'm used to <Win>+R to open the run dialog. <Win>+R then 'c:' still gets me an explorer window at c:\. Though I tend to use <Win>+E and then using the folder tree to get to the c:\, but to each their own. My major complaint with this is that shutting down has changed for me. I used to use <Win>, U, S, <Enter> to shut down. That's gone now, now I just hit the power button on my laptop.
This one I'll give him. Changing IP addresses is now buried yet another layer deeper. You had to dig enough in XP. This "Network and Sharing Center" is a bit annoying. Though one thing it does have going for it is that you can quickly tell whether you are sharing folders or not, and control it from there. Overall, more of a "meh" than a problem.
And, we're back to stupidity. There is a little box in the upper left hand corner of the Explorer window, oddly labeled "search", it's even visible in some of his screenshots. Type a string of letters in, and Presto! Vista goes and finds any file with the applicable search string (it even checks inside Word, Excel and text documents.)
This is another one I'll give him, copying and the associated network issues are a problem MS needs to fix. For the entire OS to seize up because a network location is unreachable is just stupid.
Overall the author of the article manages to just show that he's only touched Vista long enough to be annoyed with the changes, and not get used to them. I've been running Vista since RC1, and excepting driver support which sucked in the release candidate, but that's to be expected, I've generally liked Vista. Most of the complaints I have heard are either ill-informed or just downright wrong. That's not to say that there aren't still issues with Vista. Driver support still sucks, the network hang-ups should really be fixed (or at least give me a cancel button for when I know I mistyped), changing security and network settings are now buried one layer deeper in almost all cases, and getting used to the security pop-up takes some doing. Though, in defense of the last one, this is something that people have been asking for; just running everything as a local administrator is insane, you wouldn't run Linux as root all the time would you? One thing that Vista does lack in this regard is a non-admin way of viewing settings that should require admin level rights to change.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
At the same time, there is still a valid criticism here. First, why change a perfectly working UI by not only moving the previous functionality to somewhere completely different and unconnected to the old location, but then using the old location for something else instead of removing it?
Secondly, why is there a web history in the open/save dialog at all? Can anyone think of a remotely plausable use case where this would be helpful?
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 13 2005, @03:14AM)
But still, how is someone supposed to know what the 'search' field does? It's not intuitive that the search string will actually search the contents of a file. Plus, having a look at his screenshot of the search dialog, it's bad interface design having the search field separated from the rest of the search criteria. There's very little visual indication that they're all related.
He also raises a very good point about the broken search feature in XP SP2. Once, I tried finding a string in a directory tree of php files. The search function found nothing, so I assumed that there were no files that contained the string. I was wrong. The string was in one of the files, but the windows search feature did not bother looking inside php files. That cost me many hours of time, until I finally came back and searched files by hand. I was extremely pissed at Microsoft, and was wishing wholeheartedly that I had easy access to 'grep'.
The blog author seems to indicate that this is still broken in Vista. If it is, then there is legitimate concern here.