Select a language to translate this page!
Powered by Microsoft® Translator
So what I find refreshing about this article is, it attempts to provide a blow by blow of reviews and articles that reveal the good, the bad ... and the ugly. All of his claims and opinions are backed up by articles, reports, and data readily available to anyone with some time on their hands and is familiar with this thing called the Internet. For the conspiracy theorists out there, Microsoft has no relationship with Koroush beyond that fact that he uses our products. He includes a full disclaimer on page 3.
Some of the "neat" stuff Koroush points out are things we are pretty proud of, especially the security enhancements in Windows Vista. There's been an ongoing debate whether or not it's actually better than XP. Koroush unearths some numbers:
In a comparison of Vista and XP security advisories issued by Microsoft between November 2006 and July 2008, Windows XP had 64 advisories rated Critical or Important, whereas Vista had 33 of the same type. Similarly, comparing the advisories issued by Secunia in 2008 Windows XP had 35% of its advisories rated Highly Critical or above, compared with Windows Vista's 29%. In fact as of late August 2008 XP still shows 30 unpatched security advisories, the highest one rated Moderately Critical; Vista shows 2 unpatched security advisories, the highest one rated Less Critical.
There's also been some speculation that XP's adoption curve and reception was much faster and more favorable than Windows Vista. We understand that people get tired of Microsoft constantly saying "Vista is great! Vista is selling like hot cakes!" (it is, by the way!), which is why it's great to see Koroush point out that there is evidence out there to demonstrate that Windows Vista is on the right track. It's also refreshing to see that Koroush kept an open mind and took the time to understand what normal adoption rates look like.
The above information is provided simply to demonstrate that Windows XP was subject to the exact same types of criticisms and concerns as Windows Vista, many of them totally baseless or sensationalist as we now know. It took roughly three years or more for XP to reach the point (SP2) where users began to start trusting it, and started blaming their errors and problems on things other than the OS itself.
He also outlines some very creative solutions to common issues he's noticed users may be hitting up against like slower than desired performance or driver support. While we appreciate his efforts, we don't recommend or endorse the tweaks included in the article.
Like I said, the article is long, but it's full of interesting information, tips and tricks for the PC users. And again, it's great to see that there is a cure for blog stress...
"we don't recommend or endorse the tweaks included in the article"
Of course not. Why would you want Vista to run better? It's selling like hot cakes, so who cares if people are happy with it or not.
Vista selling like hot cakes? It's like the old saying from Baskin Robins we have 53 varieties of ice cream all vanilla. That's really all your selling to customers is Vista people don't have a choice. All new computers come with Vista. As far as security leaks being more in XP than Vista, That is Microsoft's doing, "If we ignore XP long enough it will go away" Let face it that is what Microsoft wants for XP to go away. You spent millions on Vista and you must recoup your investment.
Photo1921, how is it Microsoft's fault in regards to security leaks being more in XP than Vista? I mean of course Microsoft engineered Vista with security as a huge priority. But your statement confuses me. It ultimately proves the point that Vista "is more secure" because of Microsoft's investments in security with that statement. Also: a lot of security "leaks" are discovered in Windows by 3rd party security experts - not just Microsoft. Those security experts finding more security issues with XP than Vista certainly isn't Microsoft's doing in that case.
Love the blog posts that read like a blog.
That said, I read that article a few days ago, and I while I didn't have anything to add at the time, I do now:
The community can be woven quiet closely at times, especially between the biggest Microsoft bloggers. It is interesting to say the least.
Nice post ;)
Pls read this post
I strongly endorse all of these fixes, plus some more. Any time I have to use Vista (which is more and more) I need it to run well and the only way to get it to do that is to remove all of the Vista crap. Disable UAC, use classic theme (using Aero feels like I'm walking through a muddy field), reset the Start menu to get the Run field, stop indexing, stop defrag, stop Defender (has anyone ever had Defender run without the ! over the icon? I scan and update and it makes no difference), dumb down the security so you can talk to a Mac server, disable thumbnail previews, bring the menu back, kill the sidebar etc... After you do all that it's not bad, whether it's on a cheap machine or 64 bit Ultimate. If only I could simplify the network settings interface (did we really need to change the way xp did it?) and get it to run updates without at least two failing to install every time, I'd be really happy. MS should embrace these changes too, because the experience is so much better, but it sometimes feels like you're reluctant to admit Vista as is needs tweaking. You post a link to several pages of problems and solutions, then say don't do any of it because everyone loves it. It's self defeating. I still can't understand why you won't allow a fresh upgrade install. A fresh install runs 50 times better than a straight upgrade, but I'm sure a lot of early adapters were forced to upgrade your way (before the hack was revealed) and their experience played a huge part in the early negative reviews that led to the "FUD" you are trying to combat here. I thought Vista was cool at first, grew disillusioned quickly, but now I can at least get it to function by following articles like the one you posted. However, I still tell people to avoid it when they can. Do you think my parents can do all of these things? Should they have to?
Let me correct NYCBESAD on a few things.
1. Disabling UAC is leaving your computer open to vulneribilities, reducing security. Bad move.
2. Aero isnt slow unless you are running on total junk hardware, and even then Vista ASKS you if you want to turn it off to regain performance.
3. Indexing and Defrag dont run when the user is active, and it makes more sense to set a schedule for Defrag than to let it run free. But you knew that, right?
4. Defender works fine, the only time it displays the yellow ! is when you havnt let it run in a few days. Once its run, its gone.
5. If you are dumbing down security to talk to a Mac server, that should answer a LOT of questions for you right there. You are sacrificing security to use your lesser "fanboy" technologies.
6. Network interface is ok, the wireless is much improved and it takes 5 minutes to get used to.
7. Updates always seem to install fine for me and the computers i support.
8. Microsoft should embrace someone with obvious lack of experience in the field, who admittedly shuts off security, strips features and blames the OS for HIS hardware shortfalls? Get a clue.
I just finished deploying over 500 Vista machines and they all run like a champ. Deployment is much more refined and easier in Vista than ever before.
If you dont like it, you are doing it wrong. Not microsoft.
No, i dont work for MS.
You think I'm a fanboy b/c I have to connect to an Xserve where I work? That answers a lot of questions all right. As for UAC, install Bitdefender and you have all of the protection of UAC without the annoyance. I've run Vista on everything from low end laptops to high end gaming rigs and all of these changes make it run better. I wonder if you disagree with all of the tips mnentioned at Tweakguides as well.
Indeed, bad press about Vista sells on the net.
Last year, we ran a poll and then published an article talking about what people consider to be "Windows Vista's biggest problem":
Since then, the OS has matured a lot and most of the issues presented in the article are solved.
I like the article published by TweakGuides and I agree with its author.
I looked them over and I agree with some, but not all.
Infact a large portion of his "resolutions" was simply showing proof that Vista isnt acting up when people believe it is, as opposed to offering a real change or fix.
If you "have" to connect to an Xserve at work and turn off lots of security to do so, perhaps your company should look into new Server Admins.
Disabling lots of security features and protections to siphon a few more cpu cycles and MB of RAM out of a box is only going to help performance until you "Accidentally" install your first bit of malware.
@nycbesad - I hate to be a jerk here, but turning off UAC is a bad move. Nothing can duplicate the security of LUA. Antivirus software like Bitdefender cannot stop zero-day vulnerabilities like UAC can.
In fact, the TweakGuides article (since I actually read it a few days ago) is pretty firm on UAC, going so far as to say the following:
"I strongly encourage you not to disable UAC. UAC makes absolutely no performance difference, maybe costing you a few extra seconds of time every session. On the other hand enabling a range of background malware scanners will reduce your performance, often noticeably, not just in terms of CPU or RAM usage, but mainly in terms of reducing the speed of read/writes to your hard drive. Background malware scanners also can and will conflict with software such as games, resulting in crashes to desktop and stuttering."
Kind of the opposite of what you said, and I would have to agree with TweakGuides here. So please; leave UAC on. It's for your own good.
UAC is not a solution. It's a technology that requires the end-user to complete the process for the "solution".
It would be nice if Microsoft were to stop yacking about UAC and take a look at how some of the competitors do it (Bitdefender was a good example). They seem to do it without the problems. Perhaps you should hire them to do the job that the Windows team can't seem to do themselves.
Trying to defend UAC is simply introducing yet another technology that competes for the users time while they are trying to complete the solution. UAC should not be seen unless the threat is real. All UAC does is guess every single time. That's not incredible coding guys...that's coding to the lowest possible denominator and then throwing the burden of the work on the end-user. I'm assuming the best crack-developers were NOT involved in the UAC coding in any way. I guarantee that secretly NOBODY in the development team wanted the current state of UAC. This is EXACTLY the type of thing that the OS is supposed to make transparent. With UAC, the computer gets MORE in my way of doing things than it did before. Mentioning the "security improvements" is like watching a painful McCain speech where he continually mentions the war on terror. It's FUD. Actually, that kind of describes Vista marketing. When you can't beat them...just beat them down...take away choice...and argue your point to the bitter end regardless of logic.
I fully understand Microsoft operating systems from MS-DOS 3 through Windows Vista. It has taken since 1990 to accomplish this. For computer users world wide, that had patience and a burning desire to understand the cryptic operating system, MS-DOS version 5 turned on the lights. Windows prior to Windows 95, most will agree was a joke, and not a funny one.
Windows 95 turned on the lights for all computer users world wide, if you could read, type a little and click the mouse, you were in.
Since Windows 95 Microsoft operating system upgrades have been one step forward and two steps back. That is, for all users except those original users with the patience and a burning desire to understand "getting easier" really means "so many new inovations that running a modern computer is really getting harder".
And finally Vista arrives, I keep telling myself and associates that Vista is not easy "unless you understand it. Well really lying to my self and my associates, because using the "Clasical Menu", in windows 95 through Windows Vista makes them all appear and operate neary the same.
So what is really wrong??? Maybe the fact that Windows XP and Vista require updates and patches almost daily. And the systems still either crash or freeze up. Many users will disagree with this statement. But it is only because most of these "crashless" users do no often push windows to the edge of multi tasking, with maybe 20 or more applications at once. That is like driving your car about one mile a month. You will seemingly never run out of gas.
But all so called "power users" know what I mean. Besides the daily upgrades and patches, viruses and malware are an absolute problem that old trusted software like AVG can not keep up with.
Bottom line word, "ENOUGH" after amost 20 years of believing. Unless a Mac Book Pro, or Mac Pro" can chage this scene, the days of easy and reliable computing is about to come to a close except for the unique and hardest of heads. Or maybe Microsoft will come up with a different computer for each single task and forget heavy duty multi-tasking.
And I must add this PS: I still admire Bill Gates but not his company and those he has turned it over to . . . Executives and Engineers, like auto manufacurers, design there products for the ease of the makers, rather than the drivers and mechanics.
Brandon, Let's see since both products are made by Microsoft, I would venture to guess it's Microsoft problem. Now I understand XP is an older product, but that should not negate Microsoft's responsibility to support it. MY opinion is Microsoft is faced with two major problems, Windows XP, and the fact that most people don't like Vista. Microsoft can not figure out a way to get people to leave XP with out forcing them, and by forcing people they are going to always be perceived as the "bad guy." Vista on the other hand has it's problems, One first and foremost, "for me" is the UI this was a major complaint in the beta's of Vista and Microsoft chose to ignore it, and believe me I was part of the beta's I saw the complaints, and again Microsoft, just ignored them. others, are hardware requirements, backwards compatibility, drivers, UAC,DRM, the list goes on. Vista is not an easy one to fix, because Microsoft has so many users who want so many different things, for so many different reasons. I believe, and yes I will admit this is from my own bias's is a good deal of the problems would go away if Microsoft did not force the new UI standards on people. A simple thing like the up arrow, so many people asked for it back, and yet Microsoft said, no the bread crumb bar is so much more intuitive, but all's the people wanted was a simple up arrow. But to Microsoft at the time it was, "absolutely not, we are Microsoft we know better." That's the attitude that Microsoft has taking, basically until Microsoft, "eats crow" and learns from their mistakes their doomed to make the same mistakes. I will say this people will eventually get use to Vista, but forcing Americans to do something they don't want to, Microsoft will never be loved. Now Microsoft has one of two things to do, either get use to being perceived as the omnipotent, "bad guy" or try to placate their customers. Either way is a tough up hill fight for Microsoft...
Totally agree with you on the up arrow for navigation. I was not only part of the beta program, but also worked with a TAP partner during the Vista beta. We begged and pleaded to have the arrow included with the navigation pane and were absolutely stunned when Microsoft came back to us with a series of user studies they had performed that seemed to show the opposite. In any case, not even the TAP TAM could get anything done to fix that in Vista.
Making suggestions to the Vista developement team during the beta was like talking to a brick wall. Just look at one of the biggest features - namely the search interface - and how it breaks just about every WOSSA and Architecture development fundamentals that exist for UI. It's a classic example used in teaching developers at a number of schools how NOT to program an applicaiton interface.
Dear KnoxITPro, if you don't work for MS maybe you are looking into, since you are the only one to love vista here, looks like ass kissing to me (sorry to say that)
And now i must corect you when you say that vista works great unless we have a total junk hardware. I have a travelmate 5620 dualcore2 and 2 gigs ddr@667 Mhz, dedicated geForce go 7300. Now how can i explain myself better than having a look into the task manager soon after start-up , i found that Vista needs more than half of my total resources just to run itself. How it sounds to you? You think that ppl have to buy computers just to provide a host for MS Vista?
Myself i need speed, i can't wait 1 minute for vista to delete a 3 kb txt file from desktop, calculating first.. then calculating remainig free space.. then asking me if i really want to delete it.. and finaly drop it on the recycle bin. This is time waisting for me.
Yeah is true, Vista should be more secure than any previous OS. Learning from past mistakes should help. Anyway security is not my concern since i have nothing verry important to protect, and who really looks for protection, is using crypto software and other stuff, doesn't acctually rely on MS.
ed grey, please be more appropriate when addressing other people via comments here on the blog.
Please keep in mind people DO love Vista and have expressed that here on the blog and certainly doesn't mean they are kissing anyone's rear end when they say they do either. KnoxITPro isn't the only one here who has expressed their happiness with Windows Vista.
People come here and are free to leave their opinions whatever they may be (and appropriately). Those opinions can be they like Vista, or they can be they don't like Vista. However it is expected that folks respect other's opinions here while leaving comments. You may like/not like something but someone else may not feel the same way and that doesn't make them wrong.
Sorry if i might say something and ppl got me wrong. the reason i post here as you said "my personal opinion" to let ppl like KnoxITPro wich say that everything run smooth unless we have a total junk hardware, are wrong. Photo1921 is right about the 53 varieties of ice cream all vanilla. I bought my computer with vista preinstalled, wich is not a total junk, and no.. vista is not runing as smooth as KnoxITPro tell us here, deploying over 500 Vista machines and they all run like a champ.
All my friends and relatives turned back to XP even having paid for vista licences. MS somehow didn't give us the choice. it was more like take it or leave it.
I am not trying to advertise or to put bad words here about vista.. i am only express my personal experience with vista wich i am in title to.. considering that i paid for it.. and has no use for me now.
Vista is a great OS. I love it, like KnoxITPro.
The "slowest" computer I have is a Samsung UMPC: 1 GHz Pentium M, 4200 RPM hard drive and 2 GB of DDR2 667. You know what? Vista itself runs great. Anything that has lots of hard drive access? Of COURSE it'll be slow because I have a slow hard drive. But general use, Vista is fast and responsive. I'm not kidding nor exaggerating -- I have a Core 2 Duo @ 2.4 w/ 4 GB of RAM and Vista on a RAID0 of Raptor's at home. My tablet doesn't boot as fast, but it's as usable.
Does it use half the RAM? Well, yeah. What are you doing with the other half? Just preferring it to be empty? As the "Annoyances" article points out, 1. empty RAM is wasted RAM and 2. Vista frees up RAM that it's using for low-priority things (i.e., indexing) for programs that need it.
The one gripe I have about Vista is addressed in the Annoyances article, and this is my question to you, Brandon: Why does Folder Views seem so... inconsistent... when compared to XP? How come when I click the same buttons in Vista to make all of my folders display the same, Vista does not do so? Is Microsoft going to address this or is it "a feature, not a bug"?
My understanding of the situation (and the registry tweak mentioned in the article) is that Vista is trying to give you a view 'appropriate' to the files contained. So if you have photos in a folder, you will likely want thumbnail view. This breaks down, though, and quickly in Vista: If you put one photo in the midst of 100 documents (let's say .txt for now), suddenly that folder has photo view, which isn't really appropriate. I've seen Vista change folders even if /no/ new files are there, though (mainly: c:\users\%username%), which doesn't make sense. Why doesn't Vista remember my folder settings like I've told it to?
The tweak seems to just delete all 'profiles' for examining folders and say "all folders are now documents folders" (or whatever part of the registry tweak one chooses). That gets me a list view for everything, which is what I wanted but seems like way too strong an action for so simple an issue...
Yesterday i have tested XP X64 edition. WOW, now that's what i call an good OS. X64 is the future. Anyone can tell us something about vista X64? It is better? Solved the driver related issues?
Best regards. ed
I've been using Vista X64 on two HP laptops for several months, and haven't had any problems at all. HP has provided the 64 bit drivers for everything, including the tablet digitizer and fingerprint reader on the tablet PC. I've NOT found anything that wouldn't run on X64, with the exception of Cisco VPN client but they say they will never support Vista X64. One laptop has 2 gigs of ram, the tablet has 3 gigs, and both run great. Use both for multitasking a lot, picture editing, video editing, listening to music, surfing the web, etc.
No complaints about Vista here, either 32 bit or 64 bit version.
How did this end up an XP-Vista arguement?
Vista works well on great hardware
XP works Great on all hardware!
that is that..
the vista vs xp is actually part of the initial post, almost half! A lot of peaple without heaps of computer science under their belt rely on things like tweakguide to provide better service to clients, not all working in the industry are MSCE! Also not all hardware works under XP and some only partially. (anyone else got old 98 hardware under the house?) so just-etc- that is not that. configuring the os to run according to specific needs is somthing that a lot of end users need all the help they can get. thankyou to everyone that takes time to share their knowledge and make computer use more enjoyable for the rest of us.
Great article I finally read all of it. It's really a fresh unbiased view of how things really are. If you check a few posts back you'll note that I have been saying for a long time that XP and Vista adoption rates are very similiar, and even leaning in favor of Vista.
No, i dont work for Microsoft. That isnt to say i wouldnt consider it a great honor.
Call me a "butt kisser" if you want. The fact remains that I recently deployed over 500 new machines at a new facility and did not have one single VISTA related problem. Dell sent a couple DOA machines, HP sent a couple DOA printers. The new ability to Vista to hop HAL's was trememdously helpful because we had 3 different form factors to deal with, all with differneces enough to hose an XP image trying to hop from one to the other. Not Vista, though. Lets not forget that it was all done using WinPE 2.1 which is run off the core of Vistas kernel.
If you know what you are doing, Vista is a great OS. There is a slight learning curve for those coming from XP, but then again if everything was identical it wouldnt be a newer OS. Self-healing NTFS, scheduled defrags, volume shadow services, synch manager and a plethora of other options that come standard on Vista have reduced quite a few problems and saved us lots of time, in my IT Dept.
The only "problem" we HAVE had, is that the company who's programs we use for a DB interface wont update their code to work in conjunction with UAC. Its not MS's fault, its the fault of the software maker who violated MS's instructions on where to set user-editable files when they are run as a user. Its NOT Microsofts fault when every software programmer is sloppy and wants a user to run as admin 100% of the time.
okay look. i dont know any of this high end techinical stuff, i'm a regular computer user who's just trying to get my work done, and windows vista has been a source of no end of annoyance and irritation since the day i got it. It keeps asking me unneccessary questions, windows keep popping up when i'm trying to do something in a hurry, all of my favourite programmes have some sort of compatibility issue with vista and worst of all, its slower than xp on a pc that's 3 times more powerful then my old platform. My dad cant open hisbank websites, my mum cant install her favourite games and I cant even figure out where the damned print button is in ms office 2007. Its bloody unwieldy, hard to use and troublesome. I've actually been AVOIDING using my new pc since i got it because it has so many compatibility issues. XP never had problems like this. Hell, dos never had problems like this.
Look there's no point creating a fancy "secure" programme if i cant even use it without yanking half my hair out. Windows vista needs some serious fixing. And real quick. Right after i type this i'm going out to the pc shop to try and find a retail version of xp, because i can take this crap anymore.
Take your technical geekspeak elsewhere, the rest of us just want a pc that WORKS.
Vista does work. Don't insult those responsible enough to learn how to use their machine.
You dont goto the grocery store and buy a pack of chicken and the chicken cooks itself for you. You dont buy a car and the car drive itself. You learn to cook, you learn to drive. In the same way you should learn to properly operate and maintain a computer operating system and your experience wouldnt be so unsatisfactory.
99% of computer problems are end-user related. Think about that.
"99% of computer problems are end-user related."
That's simply a cop-out. An operating system should make things transparent for it to succeed. Your grocery analogy isn't quite right. A better analogy would be that you go to the car dealership, but are then forced to change the tires, wire the radio, and tune the engine yourself to get it to work right.
If this were 20 years ago, then yes. That was expected. But to really have gotten nobetter off than we were then is really a knock to Microsoft and the only thing us customer are to blame is that we've accepted this sad state of affairs as the norm. I should not be expected to understand my OS in order to get my job done. That is the entire point of the OS.
You don't see people hacking and tuning a Mac to work. It just works out of the box. That's progress. Vista is the same as XP is the same as 2000 is the same as...DOS really. If Vista had autoexec and config.bat files, I'm sure we'd be having to tweak those still too.
I cannot believe that you deployed 500 machines and didn't have one single problem with Vista. If you did, you'd be in the guiness book of records. Just the IE compatability issues ALONE would have caused some problems.
Anyone else care to claim a 500+ user OS deployment of Vista that didn't have ANY OS problems whatsoever? Anyone? EVERY computer install of that size is going to have SOME kind of issue.
Anyone else dare to claim that 99% of the computer problems are caused by end-users? Only 1% is caused Vista?
If this is indeed true, then please provide us the link to your deployment whitepapers and process. The Microsoft Consolting Services and their Critical Situations (critsit) team will be knocking at your door to get you hired because you've achieved what nobody else on the planet has been able to do.
Bottom line: prove it.
and before you start in on me, I manage a 3050 user environment which currently has about 300 Vista machines deployed. I like Vista too, but your claim of zero problems did not match ours. We had many issues, especially before the service pack was released. Why do you think they release service packs? Because there are no problems?
Lets clear a few things up.
These were ~500 machines with Vista preinstalled from Dell. Machines designed to run Vista. Plenty of hardware.
I wiped the Dell vista install, and performed my own clean SP1 OEM install. Set up Office 2007, Firefox, some other small applications. Loaded all available windows and office updates. Sysprep'd the box, captured using imagex and deployed the 500 boxes using imagex.
I hopped hardware several times to laptop models and a couple desktop variations. No, there was not a problem from VISTA. The only problem with an application we had was an web based oracle interface application that swaps data locally in some files, those files requested to write to program files as an administrator. In the end, it was the shortfall of the company who wrote this software, not Vista.
IE Compatibility problems? Vista comes with IE7, and none of the updates failed or caused other issues. So what are you talking about?
We had Dell hardware failures. We had DOA HP Printers. We had bad cat6 runs. We had ZERO problems that were flat out caused by Vista itself. Im not lying, I have no reason to lie. Microsoft isnt going to pay me to write this blog post, im not Jerry Seinfeld.
Our environment isnt quite as locked down and doesnt use as many third party software apps as a lot of you probably do.
I'm not quite sure why so many people are so anti-Vista. So far its worked well for me and in my job. I would venture to say that perhaps some companies need to hire systems administrators that are able to roll with the changes and learn to use a new OS.
IEATPOI - Actually you are wrong. Nearly every day do we come across situations where Windows or Microsoft technologies simply trump Apple all around. Our tickets are about 70/30 Apple/Windows. That should say a lot.
Apple deloyment is decades behind that of Windows, and thats a big one when you have sites of several hundred machines.
Also, while you dont interface directly with the OS, you do need to know how to interface with its features. Do you hire a mechanic to change your radio station? Or expect your radio to do it on its own? You ask a mechanic to change a timing belt, the same way you ask Vista to defrag at XYZ timeframe, or whatever other setting. You cant blame the OS or its features when you yourself are unexperienced and unwilling to do your end of it.
I found an error for you. The one and only error out of nearly 600 vista machines.
Upon sysprep'ing a Dell D530 Latitude laptop, to image over to ~60 others. The Intel 945 Video adapter driver somehow uninstalled itself. Like within 3 seconds of the sysprep shutdown.
Is this a Vista issue, or an Intel issue? No real way to tell without digging for an answer. But ill let you guys place the lame on Vista.
But wait...as soon as the image is applied and the box runs the setup routine and logs in, windows update finds the driver and asks to install it within seconds. So even though Vista messed up, shouldnt we give it credit for rectifying the situation before I even had time to?
Photo1921: Thank you for trying to save the up arrow. That is my single biggest obstacle to productivity in using Vista. Breadcrumbs are worse than useless. Microsoft, you trained millions of users to use PCs in a specific way. People are hating having to unlearn the behaviors you instilled in them to begin with - that is where so much of this Vista hatred comes from, in my experience.
Some other annoyances:
No XP-Style Start Menu: I seriously have to go back to the 2000-era "Classic" as my only option? WTF? I hate the loss of fly-out menus, but I like the double-column Vista menu. Why can't we have options?
Changing the icon for "Show Desktop" without any warning. I discovered it accidentally days after using Vista.
UAC's been beat to the ground already, so I won't go into detail here.
Refresh icon on IE7 is moved and altered for no good reason. Again, a bit of scavenger hunting required here. Changes to fix flaws or improve user flow is one thing, but moving a perfectly good icon from one place to another place on the same horizontal line (and altering its appearance) doesn't enhance anything - it's just change for the sake of change. Again.
Shut Down options hiding behind an icon. Initial mis-clicks made me frequently unhappy. Thank god Windows 7 seems to be fixing this one.
I don't like that the little network icon in the taskbar don't flash when transmitting data anymore. That was a nice visual way to communicate information without requiring any clicking or input from the user.
Too much work to change the system date and time.
The next ones are not Vista per se, but also Microsoft design failures:
Windows Media Player attempting to "sync" with every flash drive I ever plug in, as if WMP is a horny puppy and my USB Stick is a leg. Syncing is stupid. Windows is showing Apple envy, and that's just wrong.
Ribbon Menus in Office. Where is the what again? Why did unicorns invade my PC? Nothing is where it should be. The second largest productivity killer in my new computer experience.
So that I'm not perceived as all doom-and-gloom, here's some things I really have come to love:
Moving the user folders to C:\Users. At first disconcerting, but this is an example of a change that made so much sense after getting used to it.
Also, the new solitaire games and Purble Palace are cool.
You die hard IT guys may not like it, but you all helped make computers this ubiquitous. It's not all the fault of users being too ignorant to learn their tools. Unskilled users believe the corporate hype that PCs are easy to use and understand. Since Microsoft created so much of that expectation, it has a responsibility to deliver.
I've had Windows Vista Business for a few years and have never had a serious problem with it yet. The only issue at first was 'drivers' and thats been true of ever new version of Windows. I was pleased with how many drivers the Win 7 Beta automatically installed during my installation. Far better than older programs did.