has vista been fixed yet?

[MascisMan]

OSX is a fine OS... I just don't want to pay for it.

Why do people feel the need to convert people to Macs? The only problem I have is that it offers me exactly the same things as Windows does but at a higher cost. I can see how people with less computer knowledge would prefer a Mac but, for me, with a relatively high level of computer knowledge (I'd say top-tier of consumer; I can code a bit, too, and know some basic techie stuff... including the hardware components, obviously), I don't see the advantage in paying extra for something (even just paying for the OS).

Maybe people want to convert others to their product because they are proud of what they have/use.

If you don't want to pay extra for the OS that is definitely your perogative. I don't see very many "Whats wrong with Leopard?" threads in this forum though. Maybe sometimes you get what you pay for?

Again, Macs are for people with less computer knowledge? So the "smarter" people choose the OS that breaks down more (Vista)?

 

[MascisMan]

Why would I want a Mac Mini? Why would anyone? Especially if they want performance? I wasn't kidding before about the prices, either. Buying from Apple is beyond expensive, it's piracy.

I hope your not defining performance by frames per second.

That being said, buying from Apple is expensive (which is always relative). The advantages have already been stated though.

One thing not mentioned is that since Apple incorporates a vertical business model; all of their software can be built around specific hardware where as Microsoft has to build their OS with dozens of manufacturers and unlimited hardware options in mind. Hence all the different driver issues.

This plays a large role in why Apple software and the OS for that matter seem to work more seemlessly the majority of the time. The downside is that there isnt a lot of hardware customizeability for Mac computers. Of course though I think we can all agree that the people most often upgrading hardware are gamers and Apple doesnt build machines with gaming as a priority.

 

[supermonkey]

So I guess everybody posting in here has an instance or two of Vista up and running nearby?

One that they've been beating on for a few months so they can identify all the bugs? And that's the basis of all these claims that "Vista doesn't work"?



(I deal with two Vista boxes daily, at home and at work. They run fine for me...)

 

[MascisMan]

Stick with XP. Don't bother with a Mac unless you want to spend the extra $500 for worse hardware (sorry, but it had to be said... Macs are expensive... work great, but are expensive).

Yet despite the "worse hardware" some reports show that Macs run Vista better than some prominent PC manufacturer's computers do.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Infernal Affair]

If you're talking about gaming, most people wouldn't use a Mac in the first place anyway. There isn't a lot of support for computer games in that platform and the computer gaming industry has been seriously going down the drain despite the few hits it has.

The Mac price/performance ratio varies depending on the model and time it was released. Computer components constantly improve at a rapid pace, and Apple only updates the specs on their systems maybe once or twice a year. The Macbooks used to be the best deal in the market for a core2duo processor laptop, but now you can find deals on Dell and other models for a couple hundred less with the same or better specs. But you still pay for the terrific OS, good customer support, and solid build quality.

The wording for the thread subject is misleading and implies that there's a huge problem and Windows Vista is broken and unusable. Like others have said, once software companies start supporting the OS better then things will even out. This has happened on every iteration of Windows and every iteration of Mac OS. It's just sometimes the update is faster. No need to turn this into a Mac vs. PC debate.

 

[kevinmoore73]

Here's an interesting pie chart that shows that Microsoft themselves are to blame for 17.9 percent of over 479,000 reported Vista crashes: Invalid Link Removed

 

[SuperDuck]

Here's an interesting pie chart that shows that Microsoft themselves are to blame for 17.9 percent of over 479,000 reported Vista crashes: Invalid Link Removed

...it also shows that more than 30 percent are caused by, that's right, drivers. If non-Vista components are responsible for more than 80% of crashes, then it makes a pretty good case that while Vista has a few bugs, it's the non-updated software/hardware from other companies that's the problem, not Big Bad Vista.

 

[adammazza]

...it also shows that more than 30 percent are caused by, that's right, drivers. If non-Vista components are responsible for more than 80% of crashes, then it makes a pretty good case that while Vista has a few bugs, it's the non-updated software/hardware from other companies that's the problem, not Big Bad Vista.

Two words - backwards compatibility. You shouldn't need to replace your hardware every time a new OS comes out.

Adam

 

[MascisMan]

...it also shows that more than 30 percent are caused by, that's right, drivers. If non-Vista components are responsible for more than 80% of crashes, then it makes a pretty good case that while Vista has a few bugs, it's the non-updated software/hardware from other companies that's the problem, not Big Bad Vista.

...which also shows that an OS designed to run with hundreds or thousands of different hardware configurations from dozens of different manufacturers is destined for some failure.

I guarantee you that if Microsoft produced their own computers in-house and chose their own hardware to accompany their own OS they developed, a lot (not all) of Vista's problems would be remedied.

Of course this type of model would drive the price up a bit.....

 

[SuperDuck]

Two words - backwards compatibility. You shouldn't need to replace your hardware every time a new OS comes out.

Adam

If it's a hardware issue, then we're back to drivers again.

Fact: If you have a legacy system then it will probably not perform very well with Vista.

Windows 3.11 had higher system requirements than DOS. Windows 95 had higher system requirements than 3.11. XP had higher requirements than 2000.

Vista is a new OS and asks for more under the hood than XP. Why is this a surprise? "I don't understand why my PII machine with half a gig of RAM is having trouble - it could run XP. Vista must suck."

If it's hardware compatibility, then you need to talk to the manufacturers of your hardware. If it's hardware _performance_ then you need to upgrade to a computer than can actually RUN Vista.

 

[SuperDuck]

...which also shows that an OS designed to run with hundreds or thousands of different hardware configurations from dozens of different manufacturers is destined for some failure.

I guarantee you that if Microsoft produced their own computers in-house and chose their own hardware to accompany their own OS they developed, a lot (not all) of Vista's problems would be remedied.

Of course this type of model would drive the price up a bit.....

Hey. Stop trying to make so much sense.

 

[MascisMan]

Hey. Stop trying to make so much sense.

 

[MascisMan]

Vista is a new OS and asks for more under the hood than XP. Why is this a surprise? "I don't understand why my PII machine with half a gig of RAM is having trouble - it could run XP. Vista must suck."

If it's hardware compatibility, then you need to talk to the manufacturers of your hardware. If it's hardware _performance_ then you need to upgrade to a computer than can actually RUN Vista.

I agree and disagree with these comments.

Yes a new OS (especially a bloated one) will demand more from the hardware than a stripped down OS. Considerably older machines should not be expected to run a brand new OS. However, Vista is having issues on brand new machines (yes I understand not every Vista owner is having problems- I dont think any product could have a 100% fail rate).

As far as the second comment, this is exactly what Im talking about. If you want to pass the buck to the manufacturers of the hardware for the driver issues that is fine. It is Microsoft that is allowing any PC manufacturer to do whatever they want in terms of choice and freedom of hardware customization. In turn, the end user may suffer because of the lack of R&D on the 3rd party builder's part.

So yes, Superduck has a valid point that the external PC builders (Sony, Toshiba, HP, Dell, etc.) may be to blame for using sub-par hardware or insufficient hardware with Microsoft's OS. And yes the manufacturers of the different peripherals are responsible for updating their drivers for the new OS.

Here are a few questions though. Is Microsoft monitoring which manufacturer's they sell their product to for mass consumption? Why is Microsoft building a demanding OS which needs many variables to operate correctly knowing that it will be implemented into PC's containing hundreds or thousands of different configurations?

Vista just gives me the feeling that Microsoft wasn't trying to innovate but rather keep up. In order to keep up, an unfinished product had to be rushed to market. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Selta]

Haven't had any issues with Vista, and I've been running it since RC 1...
The thing that gets me, is people running very dated hardware, expecting to be able to run the latest and greatest OS fine.
The only issue I've had was trying to get my TV Tuner card to work perfectly. Of course, I didn't expect it to work at all since the company who made it no longer exists, and it was made in 1999. However, it still works decently, just has some issues with the software (which was designed for "Windows ME". What a joke).

Does Vista have some issues? Sure does. Did Windows XP have issues? Sure as heck did! Did windows 200? 98se? 98? 95? Need I go on?

For the Mac zealots, by the way. Too bad your system was the fastest one hacked at an international contest for hacking, eh?
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/pwn-2-own-over-macbook-air-gets-seized-in-2-minutes-flat/

 

[MascisMan]

For the Mac zealots, by the way. Too bad your system was the fastest one hacked at an international contest for hacking, eh?
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/pwn-2-own-over-macbook-air-gets-seized-in-2-minutes-flat/

Dang that must mean that Macs get more hacked than PC's....

The irony is that he had to sign an agreement to keep quiet until the vendor was made aware which basically means whatever he did will probably be sewn up rather quickly. Knowing Apple they will probably just hire him.

 

[MascisMan]

Does Vista have some issues? Sure does. Did Windows XP have issues? Sure as heck did! Did windows 200? 98se? 98? 95? Need I go on?

Yes every OS on every platform has some issues. But doesn't it say something when the manufacturer of the OS offers a rollback to the previous OS because of the severity of issues?

 

[Selta]

Dang that must mean that Macs get more hacked than PC's....

The irony is that he had to sign an agreement to keep quiet until the vendor was made aware which basically means whatever he did will probably be sewn up rather quickly. Knowing Apple they will probably just hire him.

Knowing apple, they'll make a commercial out of it. But, none the less, it's just proof that even though they claim much better stability, their systems can be compromised just as quickly, or even more quickly.
And, the agreement was signed prior to the event. I know a couple of guys who were trying to get into this. They both decided not to when they heard about this agreement. To them, and I share this view, the money and laptop are hush money. Safari has had issues since version 1.0 that haven't even begun to be addresses, hence how easily it was for him to compromise the system.

Yes every OS on every platform has some issues. But doesn't it say something when the manufacturer of the OS offers a rollback to the previous OS because of the severity of issues?

Yes and no. It's not because of the severity of the issues, it's because the customers keep asking for it. Mainly corporate customers who don't have time or resources (or want, etc.) to move to Vista. Mine falls in this boat, as we just moved to XP 1.5 years ago. Like we're going to start that process again. Without XP support and rollback options, we'd be forced to go with Vista now, against our will.
And also it falls under ignorance. People read a lot of "horror" stories on the 'net about how "bad" Vista is without giving it a proper test themselves. I know this is especially true because of the system building and consulting I do. I see it day in and out.

 

[MascisMan]

Knowing apple, they'll make a commercial out of it. But, none the less, it's just proof that even though they claim much better stability, their systems can be compromised just as quickly, or even more quickly.
And, the agreement was signed prior to the event. I know a couple of guys who were trying to get into this. They both decided not to when they heard about this agreement. To them, and I share this view, the money and laptop are hush money. Safari has had issues since version 1.0 that haven't even begun to be addresses, hence how easily it was for him to compromise the system.

Yes and no. It's not because of the severity of the issues, it's because the customers keep asking for it. Mainly corporate customers who don't have time or resources (or want, etc.) to move to Vista. Mine falls in this boat, as we just moved to XP 1.5 years ago. Like we're going to start that process again. Without XP support and rollback options, we'd be forced to go with Vista now, against our will.
And also it falls under ignorance. People read a lot of "horror" stories on the 'net about how "bad" Vista is without giving it a proper test themselves. I know this is especially true because of the system building and consulting I do. I see it day in and out.

If customers keep asking for a rollback isn't that the same thing? Did MS offer rollbacks on any of their other previous OS' (I honestly don't know; not being sarcastic)? Hasn't a negative precedent been set with Vista (for Microsoft)?

The fact that there are a lot of horror stories online regarding Vista is no indication of the quality of the OS? Lets be honest if I read review after review about a new car breaking down I wouldn't even consider buying it or looking at it. Sure when I drive it off the lot it may be perfect but how long would it take before I was blogging online about it breaking down? Like I said before, I know that Vista doesn't have a 100% fail rate. I just think it came to market to catch Microsoft up with competitors rather than innovate and set a standard. This rush probably played a large factor in Vista's less than warm public reception.

I will use any OS as long as it works. In fact, Im typing this on an XP loaded HP while mixing music on my MacBookPro right next to me. I actually considered putting Vista on this HP laptop. The laptop has a sticker claiming to be "Vista Ready." Buts it is a 21 month old 1.8 GHz with 512 RAM and crappy ATi mobile graphics card. I don't want to be inconvenienced by any shortcomings that HP forgot to check on (or were not prepared for) before slapping that sticker on.

Question about the other comment. Were your friends going to hack into an OSX, Vista, or Linux machine? According to the article the people in the contest had to choose a machine?

 

[Selta]

If customers keep asking for a rollback isn't that the same thing? Did MS offer rollbacks on any of their other previous OS' (I honestly don't know; not being sarcastic)? Hasn't a negative precedent been set with Vista (for Microsoft)?

The fact that there are a lot of horror stories online regarding Vista is no indication of the quality of the OS? Lets be honest if I read review after review about a new car breaking down I wouldn't even consider buying it or looking at it. Sure when I drive it off the lot it may be perfect but how long would it take before I was blogging online about it breaking down? Like I said before, I know that Vista doesn't have a 100% fail rate. I just think it came to market to catch Microsoft up with competitors rather than innovate and set a standard. This rush probably played a large factor in Vista's less than warm public reception.

I will use any OS as long as it works. In fact, Im typing this on an XP loaded HP while mixing music on my MacBookPro right next to me.

Question about the other comment. Were your friends going to hack into an OSX, Vista, or Linux machine? According to the article the people in the contest had to choose a machine?

The bad thing about the horror stories is that a lot have one thing in common: hardware incompatibality. Sure, Vista could've been made more backwards compatible. But, it's not, and it's not advertised that it is. BUT, the thing of it is, Windows has the "Vista capable" and "Vista ready" tags. Quite a few manufactures didn't know the difference - Vista "ready" means it'll run vista, but be very shoddy. A lot of OEMs, and people, didn't know this, so the hardware they run wont cut it. I don't know who's fault that is.

One was going after Vista and the other Linux. They both didn't want to do Mac, as it's been done before very publicly, whereas Linux and Vista have yet to.

XP was offered for s SHORT time with the option to flip back to 2000. However, that didn't last as long as MS's current offering.

Also, realize, SP1 is out for Vista, which has solved a lot of the more minor issues of incomptibility and file sharing (which I never noticed, but am only on a 3 client / 1 server "network"). However, it's the same story as SPs for XP - it's caused some headaches as well.

In short, all I'm trying to say is every new OS has it's problems. Doesn't matter who built it, at what price it is etc. If you're building a brand new PC, and do your research on it just as you would a new bass, you should be able to do fine. Otherwise, if you're ignorant about what you're buying, can you HOENSTLY blame Microsoft?

 

[MascisMan]

The bad thing about the horror stories is that a lot have one thing in common: hardware incompatibality. Sure, Vista could've been made more backwards compatible. But, it's not, and it's not advertised that it is. BUT, the thing of it is, Windows has the "Vista capable" and "Vista ready" tags. Quite a few manufactures didn't know the difference - Vista "ready" means it'll run vista, but be very shoddy. A lot of OEMs, and people, didn't know this, so the hardware they run wont cut it. I don't know who's fault that is.

One was going after Vista and the other Linux. They both didn't want to do Mac, as it's been done before very publicly, whereas Linux and Vista have yet to.

XP was offered for s SHORT time with the option to flip back to 2000. However, that didn't last as long as MS's current offering.

Also, realize, SP1 is out for Vista, which has solved a lot of the more minor issues of incomptibility and file sharing (which I never noticed, but am only on a 3 client / 1 server "network"). However, it's the same story as SPs for XP - it's caused some headaches as well.

In short, all I'm trying to say is every new OS has it's problems. Doesn't matter who built it, at what price it is etc. If you're building a brand new PC, and do your research on it just as you would a new bass, you should be able to do fine. Otherwise, if you're ignorant about what you're buying, can you HOENSTLY blame Microsoft?

If "Vista Ready" means it will run shoddy then in my opinion its not "ready." Maybe it is the PC Builder's fault for putting the sticker on preemptively. Is it Microsoft's fault that some manufacturers didn't know the difference between "ready" and "capable?" Were some 3rd party PC builders possibly misinformed or improperly educated? Are there 2 sets of hardware prerequisites for Vista? One for "ok" performance and one for "normal" performance? Did Microsoft possibly change these prerequisites mid-stream?

Although Vista is not billed as being backwards compatible, it does carry a specific set of prerequisites needed in order to run. I'm sure all 3rd party manufacturers were made aware of these prerequisites. Then why the discernible difference between "ready" and "capable?" It either runs like it is meant to or it doesn't. Why would someone want a shoddy Vista (because of dated yet acceptable hardware) over a solid XP?

When is Microsoft held accountable for choosing 3rd party manufacturers that will not adhere to hardware requirements thus leading to end user dissatisfaction?

The hardware compatibility is exactly what Im talking about though (mainly referring internal components and external peripherals). Wouldn't you concede that Apple has an advantage here because it is, for the most part, a one-stop shop? Software is designed and built around the hardware made available in Apple products? When an OS is given to dozens of manufacturers and subject to hundreds or thousands of different hardware configurations needing numerous driver updates, isn't Microsoft just inviting trouble? Or is it possible Microsoft just ran out Vista way too soon?

If we are assuming that the contest recently held where the guy hacked OSX is a reflection of the security of the OS, why has there not been more malicious (or any for that matter) attacks on Mac users? Although there are obviously less Mac users than Windows users, thus creating a smaller sub-market, are we to understand that no miscreant Mac users are out there trying to hack and corrupt OSX?

Is it possible that there are no attacks/hacks/viruses recorded on Vista yet because its brand new? OSX 10 has been out for 7 years now (in different variations) yet has not experienced very much danger whatsoever. I find it hard to believe its because hackers just want to hit large groups of users and "smaller" groups aren't worth their time/trouble. There has to have been an extreme Apple-hater somewhere with the knowledge and tools to tear OSX 10 apart. Why has it not happened yet?