Stay Away From Microsoft VISTA

[mouser]

After spending days of frustration making my programs Vista compatible, with mixed success, I unexpectedly feel like I need to add my voice to the growing chorus who feel like Windows Vista is the worst of all worlds, and a total unmitigated disaster of an Operating System.

Now I am not a knee-jerk Microsoft hater.  Personally i have a deep distrust and dislike for Apple and their marketing-scam-driven design methodology, and having used linux for a few years and dealt with linux servers for a while, i can honestly say i am not a fan of linux.  But every time i try to cut MS some slack they seem determined to prove they really are as f*cked up as their worst critics claim.

XP Pro is a fine operating system.
Microsoft Vista is a disaster.  Stay far away from it.

By far the worst thing is all this bullshit braindead User Access Control and the entire support system around it that is designed to improve security but instead winds up making using the operating system like living with the most annoying roomate you ever had in college.  If this is what a corporation with a reputation for User Interface testing produces, i'm going to rethink the entire notion of user interface testing.  I'd rather have my cat design a UAC system -- at least the cat knows what every damn firewall program knows -- you need to have ways to whitelist applications, etc.

But for me by far the most evil, harmfull, idiotic thing MS Vista does is with regards to the "Virtualization" approach to keeping old programs compatible.  Basically to solve compatibility problems with programs whose authors were stupid enough to use Microsoft's genius Registry System (another horribly stupid idea with everlasting negative reprecussions) or dares to create files in ITS OWN DIRECTORY, Vista tries to help these programs by creating secret hidden copies of the files they create, which neither users nor the programs will ever be able to find.  Best yet, it tricks the programs into thinking these files are in different locations.  Oh want more?  Ok, there can be multiple copies of these files, one in the original directory (which are now unbeknownst to the program unwritable) and then another copy in the secret directory.  Oh users with admin privileges will see the files in the normal directory, others get the secret hidden shadow copies.  Now watch the fun when users think they are working with one file but are really working with another.  More fun: If a program deletes the file -- guess what? it's still there? no it's not, its the other older shadow copy!  Please shoot the person at microsoft who thought this was a good idea.

You can read more about the virtual store here: http://msdn2.microso...ibrary/bb530410.aspx



Look, if they wanted to solve this problem they could simply have said, that all programs which need to write files in such directories need to be installed and set to run in a compatibility mode where everything works as expected in win XP.  This current solution is a total unmitigated disaster for everyone involved.

Here's another lesson for designers: Don't try to be so f*cking clever writing all kinds of secret behind the scenes stuff like this -- the result is a train wreck.

To "help" programmers microsoft also wrote this system for "embedding manifests" inside exe's which lets you tell Vista to stop it's f*cking nonsense with your program.  Getting this thing to work is an utter nightmare.  Best of all you won't get any feedback as you struggle to figure out why/how on god's earth you do this.  Embedding a manifest is incredibly convoluted and error prone.

You honestly get the feeling that there must be some cabal in Microsoft which is trying to bring the company down.  If there is, can you hurry up so we can get something better?

[scancode]

What can we do about it?
I agree with you. They fucked up on Vista. Will they change that? NO WAY!
Btw... if you got scared with Vista...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
...and of course...
http://www.winsupers...om/faq/windows_7.asp

My favourite quote from the FAQ: "Microsoft says it might also make a subscription-based version of the OS available to consumers, but that's still in flux."

-- vista me hizo quedar ciego

[Armando]

Oh my.
I'm not a Linux or Apple fan either, and I do like my XP.
But I've been studying the other OSs very closely because, well... all the vistas I've tried left a bad bad impression. Anyhow.

I guess one important question (but probably easily answered) is : how long can one stay far away from Vista and, using XP, still have access to the latest greatest computer technologies (and software)?
Staying away from Vista is fine, for now, but...

Will "Linux" be ready (for most if not all users) in a few years? I sincerely hope so -- for the health of software industry.
Will it be ready... hummm. Maybe, if virtualization solutions (like vmware and parallel dsktp) continue to make progresses.

[J-Mac]

I have posted similar sentiments at other sites and believe it or not I have gotten flamed each time -- either Microsoft has shills out and about or - and this is scary! - there are actually a lot of people who have suddenly become rampant Microsoft "Stepfords"!

Personally, I have seriously thought hard about buying a Mac next. Drastic measures, I know. I once had an Apple IIC and then a IIe way back in ... I think it may have been the late '70s! Yikes!

Then in - I believe - 1982 or so I actually had the Mac forerunner - an Apple Lisa. It was the first personal microcomputer with a purely graphical user interface. Pretty cool, actually! Many have since panned it as a horrible failure, but I liked it, and though I had a brand new MacIntosh the following year - which replaced the Lisa - it did not really improve much on the Lisa except I think it added an internal floppy disk drive. Can't remember for sure  - too damn old - but either that one or a close successor introduced the 3.5" floppy as opposed to the larger 5.25".

BTW, all were purchased for me by an employer and they were used at work, not home. At home I had a TRS-80, Commodore 128, and a home-built IBM-clone PC-XT 286 machine. Of course Apple pretty much died out as a business machine right around then - as soon as IBM capitulated to Gates and for the first allowed others to purchase licenses and build clones of their original "PC". Apple refused to do the same ans that still hurts them today.

I really don't know if I could live with a Mac today. I have become accustomed to hacking away at Windows OS's that it would be either a dream to not do that -- or a nightmare. Not sure yet. But in the meantime, if I decide to get another Windows machine first, I will most definitely purchase a separate retail version of XP Pro, wipe the new machine, and install XP on it. I tried to purchse a copy about a month ago - just in case - but the supplier ran out and emailed me they weren't getting anymore. (Uh-oh!) But I'm sure I can find one, one way or another. But I refuse to get Vista, period. Maybe after a few years, if MS relents and updates the heck out of it to make it more usable. But if not, I'll try to work with whatever else I can find to avoid it.

I have never been a Microsoft-basher. For all the problems we have had over the years, if Microsoft wasn't exactly what they are we would not have all PC-wise that we have today. But when their OS and browser started getting so blasted for security reasons, and Gates committed to making MS the most secure OS on the planet, things started badly an have plummeted ever since. And he doesn't appear to have any intention of letting up on that.

Truly scary!

Jim

[TucknDar]

Get mouserOS going!

Seriously though, I'm pretty content with my XP, although I was far more satisfied with 2k, to be honest. But there just came a point where some cool software and features would not work in good old 2k. Vista will not get anywhere near this laptop as long as every piece of software I need and use works with XP (which I'm sure mouser's app will for any foreseeable future ).

Maybe, just maybe ReactOS will someday be a good alternative. That would be awesome, although I won't hold my breath waiting...

[f0dder]

Imho, a whole bunch of the app compatibility problems with Vista are because the programmer did things he shouldn't be doing. Putting files in your application folder has been a bad idea ever since NT4 (and perhaps NT3 as well, but I never used that) because sensible ACLs forbid non-admins to mess around with stuff in %ProgramFiles%.

The registry isn't really an issue either, you just have to stick to HKEY_CURRENT_USER, and if you need HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE you better well be read-only, or do the write stuff in your installer (which must run with admin privs anyway).

The whole emulation deal in Vista is horrible though, and shows what Microsoft has to go through to keep their stupid legacy support. It's one of the biggest problems with windows, IMHO. The kernel source code even (allegedly) has comments to the effect "this hack is to support XYZ", instead of just using their "bully-power" and forcing XYZ to write proper code instead of violating API specs or depending on undocumented features.

It's pretty sad with all the FSCKED UP CRAP they've done to Vista, because there's some nice stuff in there as well (more aggressive caching, I/O prioritization) - but I can live without the stupid new GUI, this magic trixery for app compact, the DRM crap in the kernel, etc.

Oh yeah, and UAC is so ill-designed and intrusive that many people just end turning it off - way to go. I'd certainly end up turning it off myself, from the limited (4-5 hours) Vista hell I've been enduring.

But obviously MS won't port DX10 to XP even though there's no reason it can't be done, and they won't support hybrid harddrives either even though that's perfectly doable as well, so eventually we'll have to move to Vista anyway :/

Oh, and did I forget mentioning that it's a slow resource hog?

TucknDar: if ReactOS/tinykrnl ever were to really take off, they'd be shot down faster than you can yell lawsuit...

[nudone]

maybe we can just hold out for the Chinese developers to produce something that will take over China - and then the world. if they are content on keeping windows then that obviously kills that idea but i'd hope that they'd be getting something ready to replace it - i guess that would be linux one way or another.

mind you, when you can get windows for a few dollars in China then there's little point creating something to compete with it.

i really hope xp lives beyond its life expectancy - and the number of people using it means that new software is always designed to be compatible with it. if not, lets just stick with the old software that is perfectly fine anyway.

[Lashiec]

A shadow copy? I thought Vista implemented the file redirection via symbolic links, if they have that feature in the SO, why create a new copy for every file a program create in its own directory? For antivirus software, that could be a nightmare, but I suppose Vista editions of those apps will do things right.

EDIT: After reading some things about the capabilities of Windows Vista filesystem, I have found out that there is no way to use folder junctions for files, the only way to implement what I thought I was talking about up here. So forget about the first paragraph, as I believed that symbolic links was a completely different thing that, as I say, does not exist. Basically, Microsoft made a mess IMO with the new possibilities they introduced for Vista filesystem, have a look here for more information. You have everything, including the kitchen sink, but not the essential feature that would made file redirection work as it should, that is, file junctions.

[cybernetnews]

I'm not talking from a programmer's perspective, but Vista has been a great operating system for me particularly in the area of performance. Some people say that it is quite sluggish, but I've found almost all of my apps to run much faster than they ever did in XP. I have a feeling that this is because of their new SuperFetch technology, which XP has something kinda like it but not nearly as good.

[Josh]

I have to voice my love of Vista as well. I dont blame vista for application programmers not storing settings the proper way (not globally in the program files folder, but in the users folder or the all users folder if the user chooses to make settings global). As I've said in the past, settings dont belong in the programs folder unless the app is designed to be a portable app.

Vista's performance is great, most of my apps perform at or above the level's they did when I used them on XP. The exception is games, but this is being worked on and microsoft's latest performance patches have fixed that a great deal. Vista SP1 will probably fix this even more so. Plus, I do need to upgrade my video card anyways, I want DX10 support ;-).

But yes, overall, I too am impressed by Vista. Now if only application developers would finally start programming properly then I could have all of my apps be vista compatible.

[Darwin]

Frightening. I'm staying away for a host of reasons - mouser's post just hardens my resolve to do this. I think, to address scancode's "what can we do" comment, that all we can do is to get the word out, quickly. If consumers refuse to buy computers (particularly notebooks) with Vista preinstalled and either insist on free downgrades to XP or to buying with XP preinstalled or make it clear to salespeople that they will not buy a computer with Vista on it and walk, the retailers and the computer manufacturers will act pretty quickly to "encourage" MS to fix things...

Sadly, I don't think that the majority of people will care enough to make this happen. So I've come full-circle and ask "What can we do?". This is urgent for people like myself on a notebook as sooner or later it will need to be replaced because of hardware failure... I *could* buy a copy of XP but sort of resent having to pay to downgrade - if Mac hardware wasn't so RIDICULOUSLY overpriced (middle of the line Dual Core 7200 Centrino notebook here is about $1500 - that's with a 15.4" screen, 256MB discrete NVidia graphics, 5400 RPM 250GB SATA drive, 2GB RAM and Vista Premium - whereas the equivalent Mac notebook is in excess of $2500 with a slower processor) I'd seriously consider buying one along with a copy of XP, just to send a message! As it stands, I am increaslingly swayed by the option of buying a copy of XP along with a new Windows based notebook and simply downgrading/dualbooting it...

[Darwin]

Josh - you posted while I was hacking away at my keyboard, writing the above. Just to clarify, my main issue with Vista centres around third-party software compatibility. I have a number of apps that are not yet supported under Vista and which will not be supported without a paid upgrade (ie when the supported version is released I'll be required to pay to update/upgrade to that version). As one of these applications will cost me in excess of $1000 to upgrade I am in no hurry to do this!

To anticipate other counter-arguments, I must confess that my real-world usage experience of Vista is NIL, so haven't been stung by UAC issues and the like... but I've been reading about them, a lot. In fairness, I've read a lot of positive reviews from knowledgeable people, too. Anyway, my hope is that MS will roll out Sp-1 and all will be well. In a perfect world, this will coincide with renewed wars between Intel and AMD and between AMD/ATi and NVidia along with seriously cheap RAM prices. That way, I can waltz into my local pusher computer shop and buy the latest, greatest notebook for a song, enjoying the kind of CPU and GPU power that I deserve, along with the most up to date OS available. I figure that any XP only apps that remain in my library can run on one of my other notebooks, which will still be running either XP or Win2k.

[app103]

Vista scares me for a lot of reasons, but this is the primary one:

I have always been about a step or 2 behind in either OS, hardware, or both. This is because of economic reasons. I just can't afford to buy computers or OS's. Every computer I have owned has been a gift and the OS's I have run came along with them.

My father purchased a P1 in 1997 that ran Win95. Back then, hardware capabilities were changing so rapidly that within 2 years it was, for all sakes & purposes, obsolete. Somewhere during those 2 years he upgraded it to Win98SE. He gave me that PC in 1999. Had he not done that I wouldn't have had a computer. It was my first PC.

Less than 1 year later (2000) he bought me a P3 with WinME. That was the OS that was obsolete before it was released. But had he not given me that as a gift, I would still have been using the P1 with 98SE. He took back the P1 at that time, so I still only had 1 PC. (later he decided to toss it in the trash and I rescued it before it hit the curb)

That P3 was dead by 2002 and I was back to using the P1, only I decided to install the WinME from the dead P3 on that, replacing the Win98SE. (best move I ever made).

So at a time that most people were running 2k or XP on a P4, I was running WinME on a P1. Not long after was when I began programming.

It wasn't that hard to develop applications that would run the same on 2k or XP as they would on my old piece of junk with crappy 9x. I didn't need to have a better system or OS to do it. I didn't need much extra knowledge of an OS that I had never used, either. Chances are if it worked on my pc, it would work on 2k or XP and additionally, the GUI wouldn't look funny or out of place.

By the time I got a P4 running XP, people were/are getting ready to move on to Vista. This PC was also a gift. Had I not received it, I would still be on the P1 running WinME right now.

I am afraid and Vista scares me because I know my situation isn't likely to improve at any point within the near future and I will have this pc till it dies (hopefully not any time soon) and it will not run a newer OS than the XP it came with.

My skills as a developer aren't that great. I am lucky if the things I make work on my own PC with XP, nevermind on Vista. They look funny and out of place on Vista, too. Fixing just the GUI problems is beyond my skills & understanding, nevermind all the really crazy crap that is driving experienced Windows programmers nuts (like the things mouser is complaining about now).

I do not and can not officially support Vista in any of my applications.

What kind of future can I possibly have as a Windows developer? A few more years and I will be about the same as a Win3.1 or Cobol developer...just about completely useless.

Yeah, sure, I could go with .NET and use the free VS2005 I have, but I can't stand VS and it doesn't support the only language I feel comfortable with (Delphi). I feel like I am lost in a foreign country...no, make that lost on another planet, with both the IDE and any of the languages it supports. I was lucky I was even able to install it properly.

And any Delphi developer will tell you that Delphi.net is a joke...don't go there and don't do that unless you really want to create crapware not worthy of anyone using, even if you paid them to use it.

There is a good reason why I program in Delphi: It's the only language I have come across that makes enough sense to me that I could get beyond 'Hello World' without problems and actually make something useful.

So where does that leave me?

I feel like when Microsoft released Vista, they crushed all my plans, hopes, and dreams.

Maybe this is why I haven't done much programming lately and haven't felt like making any improvements in any of my existing projects. There just doesn't seem to be a point in doing it any more.

[Carol Haynes]

Pretty much how I have felt since the old days of Turbo Pascal and Turbo C++.

Whenever I look at manuals there are so many acronyms that mean little or nothing to me I just give up.

And I used to teach programming for a living!

[Cpilot]

Hehe....
It's worth blogging about.
Has Microsoft finally gone to far with Vista?

I haven't taken the plunge into trying out Microsoft's Vista OS yet. Mostly because I'm too cheap to switch right now plus I just really like WinXP pro.
But you can google "pros and cons" and find all kinds of opinions about this operating system and what people hate and like about it.
I've been reading more about personal experiences as opposed to what the major software writers have been putting out there.
The Elder Geek has a nice article on the practicalities of installing Vista but mouser at Donationcoder has some practical advice based on direct experience:

[cranioscopical]

...the old days of Turbo Pascal...

-Carol Haynes (September 01, 2007, 12:30 PM)

Boy, that was a good deal.  I couldn't believe that, when MS Pascal cost some hundreds of dollars (I seem to recall $400 at the time), Turbo Pascal could be had for $68.

[mrainey]

I seem to recall $400 at the time

I just got through ordering a new Compaq laptop with Vista Basic Home, or whatever the low-end version is called, for $400 shipped.  It'll be for my mother in law, after I get it set up and working properly, and hopefully idiot-proofed (no offense, Mom, but ...).

Something like that might be an inexpensive tool for testing Vista compatibility of our own programs.  Or would it?

[wreckedcarzz]

Now I am not a knee-jerk Microsoft hater.  Personally i have a deep distrust and dislike for Apple and their marketing-scam-driven design methodology
XP Pro is a fine operating system.

By far the worst thing is all this bullshit braindead User Access Control and the entire support system around it that is designed to improve security but instead winds up making using the operating system like living with the most annoying roomate you ever had in college.

-mouser (August 31, 2007, 09:53 PM)

I agree with all of that

But for me by far the most evil, harmfull, idiotic thing MS Vista does is with regards to the "Virtualization" approach to keeping old programs compatible.  Basically to solve compatibility problems with programs whose authors were stupid enough to use Microsoft's genius Registry System (another horribly stupid idea with everlasting negative reprecussions) or dares to create files in ITS OWN DIRECTORY, Vista tries to help these programs by creating secret hidden copies of the files they create, which neither users nor the programs will ever be able to find.  Best yet, it tricks the programs into thinking these files are in different locations.  Oh want more?  Ok, there can be multiple copies of these files, one in the original directory (which are now unbeknownst to the program unwritable) and then another copy in the secret directory.  Oh users with admin privileges will see the files in the normal directory, others get the secret hidden shadow copies.  Now watch the fun when users think they are working with one file but are really working with another.  More fun: If a program deletes the file -- guess what? it's still there? no it's not, its the other older shadow copy!  Please shoot the person at microsoft who thought this was a good idea.

-mouser (August 31, 2007, 09:53 PM)

What the hell is that about?!?! I agree, shoot the idiot!

Now when I am running something in Compatibility Mode I need to remember to punch someone at Microsoft in the face when my new file that I just saved gets overwritten.

(And I love Vista, 100%. For now, anyways.)

[MrCrispy]

Wow, I missed this very interesting thread. My perspective may be biased since I'm a Windows software developer and thus my livelihood depends on the success of Microsoft's OS's, so lets get that out of the way.

The biggest strength and weakness of Windows is its fantastic compatibility. Show me another OS which goes to such lengths to makes sure that users can run old apps. There are 2 reasons for this -

1. Windows 3.1 was a huge, huge success. It spawned so many applications which had to be supported for the lifetime of Windows due to quirks in the way they were programmed. The biggest problem was when the windows kernel moved to a new architecture, with NT and then with XP and 2003. You will be amazed at the horror stories of what Windows has to go thru to make sure old apps don't break, because when they do, Microsoft gets blamed and worse, conspiracy theories are proposed.

2.Business customers - these are a primary market, and these guys don't want new features. They want support for their legacy apps (see #1) and they want reliability, which means you can't keep experimenting with fancy UI's and new features because they get rejected.

Believe me, if you read their blogs and talk to Windows architects, they would like nothing better than to throw away all backward compatibility and start from scratch. There are a few research OS's being developed by Microsoft Research (search for Singularity) with this aim, but thats a 10 year vision given the realities of the Windows userbase.

When Vista started, they had very ambitious goals. The entire user mode parts of the OS (basically 80%) would be written from scratch in .NET with a new API and new design. Compatibility was to be maintained through virtualizing legacy parts like the registry (about which mouser has complained). Due to overambitious goals, some poor management, a focus on security above all else and and possibly some hard business decisions, they decided to scrap it all, base it on the 2003 kernel, and drop a lot of the planned features. The only thing which seems to have made it through is Avalon (the Vista graphics engine).

The goal of the Windows team is still to have a virtualized, completely isolated model of execution which is the best for application security. Windows developers have a hard life - there are so many bad habits that are impossible to break and are deeply entrenched, and the OS must work around them. Look at .NET apps - they don't use the registry, all files have to be local, and they have xcopy deployment.

Now we come to Vista's user experience. Every single developer and power user I know turns UAC off. But UAC is not meant for us - its meant to protect the average user. I have it turned on on all my friends and family's computers. Once you use it for the first week and go thru all the installs (which is when its the most irritating) its not that intrusive. If it comes up, there usually is a good reason- e.gtrying to manually rename a file in a system directory.

I don't mean to come off as a Vista apologist and I have cursed it often enough, but I will not go back to XP.

[app103]

Look at .NET apps - they don't use the registry,

-MrCrispy (September 05, 2007, 11:46 PM)

That's not true. I have plenty of .NET apps installed that DO use the registry to save settings.

[MrCrispy]

There is nothing to prevent them from doing so, but in .NET you're not supposed to use the registry for app settings - there is a whole different system for that.

Perfectly illustrates my point about bad programmer habits

[Carol Haynes]

There is nothing to prevent them from doing so, but in .NET you're not supposed to use the registry for app settings - there is a whole different system for that.

Perfectly illustrates my point about bad programmer habits smiley

But isn't that the fault of MS too - all the bad programming habits stem from a number of things in my opinion:

• Compatibility maintenance with previous Windows versions - why adopt the new approach if it loses you all the previous user base?
• Innovation fatigue - why learn new methods every six months when the old ones still work. The trouble is that MS seem to have a constant stream of new technologies all with an impenetrable collection of acronyms.
• Lack of useful documentation - I bought a copy of Visual Studio 6 a number of years back planning to get back into programming (I still have dreams). I used to teach C and C++ and OOP Pascal so I should have an advantage - I even bought the documentation set in printed format (I hate reading books on screen) - now I have 3 feet of books (literally) but they are all written assuming you know what all the acronyms mean and what all the technologies are trying to achieve - it makes the whole lot impossible to pick up without huge amounts of effort. Recently I got a free copy of Visual Studio 2005 Standard Edition - but the documentation is all on disk (apart from the completely unintelligible volume they supplied with it) - and is basically the same as i already have on paper. OK there are tutorials (and I am lazy) but it is almost impossible to keep up with the speed of change if you don't program professionally.

[iphigenie]

You don't have to keep up with the pace of change even if you program professionally. It's easy to catch up since you can pretty much ignore what happened in between now and the last time you used technology X.

Most of the change recently is all about one framework or pattern replacing the previous framework or pattern as the new "thing"... APIs come and go, new languages appear, old ones reappear, versions change, methodologies get a fad moment, IDEs and platform evolve - but when it comes to good (or bad) habits, fundamental architecture, and  the craftsmanship of software there hasn't been much of a change for quite a while.

[Carol Haynes]

Yes but when frameworks are introduced that don't work on previous platforms (such as Windows 98) but programs written for Windows 98 (say in VS6) will work on Windows Vista what is the incentive to adopt new standards when you program?

I just got an email from Karen Kenworthy - she has been updating all of her applications (presumably for Vista) but it is interesting that her website states that all of her applications are compatible with all versions (and editions) of Windows since Windows 95. This is laudible - but by definition applications must be written on the basis of tools written with Windows 95 in mind (in her case everything is in Visual Basic 6). What is her incentive to start learning .NET 3 or ASP 2.0 when programs written in VB6 are compatible across the range but moving to the newer technologies will break backward compatibility?

[Mark0]

One think that I think Apple do right is don't hesitate too much to discard some old, legacy crap for the better (or what they think would end up better). They have accomplished things that would seems impossible in the Wintel ecosystem: changed from MC68K series to PowerPC CPUs; then from System 9 to OS X; then again from PowerPCs to x86 processors. That are some pretty drastic, big changes!

Granted they have a much smaller users base, so it may be easier: but that also mean that they take more risks about screwing up and losing a part of that already small quota. There were also some "casualties" on one drastic-shift or the other, it's inevitable.