has vista been fixed yet?

[jdbernard]

At some point, it is ridiculous to argue about whose fault it is that Vista can still be so unstable. Yes, if you buy the latest and greatest machine, Vista should run fine. But many machines sold over the last year or so are marked 'Vista-Capable' and MS is getting sued because many of them are not. No matter whose fault it is, the fact remains that Vista ihas compatibility problems with a large number of devices, new or otherwise, that other operating systems don't have problems with (be it Mac, Linux, etc). It may not be Microsoft's fault, per se, but they have allowed this by relying on others for hardware.

Personally, I think it is silly to have an operating system that requires a graphics card just for itself and don't want that kind of overhead in a recording system. It doesn't make sense to me. If I am looking for a highly-reliable, highly-responsive, low-latency system, I don't choose the newest thing on the market. You know, the one that has had the least time in the real world to catch bugs, the lowest amount of driver support, and uses the most resources just to look pretty and manage itself.

Vista may be ready for everyday use, but it's not designed in any way to be a high performance audio workstation. It's just not designed towards that purpose. In the future, you may be able to tweak it to better suite the need, much as you can do for XP now, but right now it's just not a good choice for a serious audio workstation, no matter whose fault that is.

PS. in the article mentioned above, driver incompatibilities was just one of the problems mentioned, and even then, it's because MS was late in finding a flaw in the audio system's.

 

[nsmar4211]

Hate to break the bad news, but if you have to buy a new computer (not a mac), you're going to get Vista. HP doesn't ship anything out with XP. Went through quite a few techs after a brand new XP laptop died in a week....they told me the replacement would have Vista....I kicked and screamed but no way around it.

I work retail, and I can tell you now every retailer that was a authorized dealer of XP had to return all copies of it even before we received Vista. If not, we would be charged full retail for it (not cost). So any copies of XP are hoarded ones . So please don't go into your local chain supply store and demand XP on a new computer.....they won't have it...

My computer is fast enough for me, and the recording issues I've had are not vista's fault. I run this thing constantly (using a cooling thing underneath) and haven't had half the errors I had with XP.... no random reboots or mysterious errors yet. Every new operating system will be buggy.....and unless we all stopped buying computers that use them, that's what will happen. My gripe is with the exhorbant prices more than the bugs.....

 

[jdbernard]

See that's what frustrates me. There are options, you don't have to go to Vista. I'm a bit frustrated with Apple for creating such a hyped atmosphere around their products. Between that and their prices, that really polarizes people, you love it or hate it. The general consensus, which I believe is true, is that Mac does make a better machine, at least for Audio/Video purposes. There is a reason most established studios/production environments use Mac. They have the money and know it's worth it.

Also, why do we give up and accept the idea that 'Every new operating system will be buggy'. There are some issues with Mac and other operating systems, but MS has been the only company that has such widespread problems with ALL of it's operating system releases. We say "it's normal, it'll get better." Why do we put up with a faulty product that has to be majorly patched right out of the gate? At what point did it become ok to release a work-in-progress?

FWIW, I don't own a Mac, I'm not an Apple zealot. Too expensive for a starving CS major.

 

[MascisMan]

See that's what frustrates me. There are options, you don't have to go to Vista. I'm a bit frustrated with Apple for creating such a hyped atmosphere around their products. Between that and their prices, that really polarizes people, you love it or hate it. The general consensus, which I believe is true, is that Mac does make a better machine, at least for Audio/Video purposes. There is a reason most established studios/production environments use Mac. They have the money and know it's worth it.

I agree that some prices Apple charges for hardware upgrades are ridiculous.

I recently upgraded my MacBook Pro to 4 gigs of RAM. It cost me around $100 (aftermarket). Through Apple it would have been $400. Yep you heard me right, $400. Totally ridiculous.

As far as the system itself I somewhat liken it to choosing between a Kia Spectra and a Honda Civic. The Civic is about $2k more. Some people will argue that its ridiculous to buy the Civic when the Spectra offers the same service for less money. Other will argue that the Civic holds better resale value and is generally more reliable. Sure some Spectras last forever and some Civics die in the first year of ownership.

The point is that consumers play the odds and weigh the pro's and cons as they see fit. A large deciding factor though is word of mouth advertising and personal experiences.

 

[Selta]

Vista doesn't require anything GPU wise in order to "run". This is something I outline, and Mascis has gone on to a further extent with.
Vista will run with _any_ GPU. Even onboard ones. In order to get Aero, you need a DX10 capable GPU.

But, the rest of my points have been outlined clearly. Who to blame becomes fuzzy quickly, especially since we're all on the outside looking in. Unless someone from MS comes in and says "yeah, we lied" or a manufacturer says "Yeah, MS says this, but we BSed it with this", then we'll never know. And I don't see either of those happening soon.

 

[Selta]

The point is that consumers play the odds and weigh the pro's and cons as they see fit. A large deciding factor though is word of mouth advertising and personal experiences.

Thank you.

 

[adammazza]

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/

Go search CERT or any other security list for published exploits comparing and let me know what you come back with.

Anyone remember Win95 and the "Ping Of Death?" You could cause a BSOD of death.

I have been involved in computer security for years, all the OS's have their fair share, as more people use the MacOS more people will target it.

I'm not a Mac zealot by any stretch, I would never try to tell a casual user to switch OS's, Wh bother learning a new OS if the one your using works for you?

It's all about choosing the right tool for the job. That being said, anyone using an Asus Eee for any music? These look neat.

 

[Coelho]

At the end, people should use whatever they want.

I use XP at work because it is the most suitable.
I use Mac at home because it is the most suitable, and I even DOWNGRADED from Leopard to Tiger as for MY specific needs, it is better (I saved a clone of my Leopard disk to an external disk in case I change my mind).

 

[Selta]

Go search CERT or any other security list for published exploits comparing and let me know what you come back with.

Anyone remember Win95 and the "Ping Of Death?" You could cause a BSOD of death.

I have been involved in computer security for years, all the OS's have their fair share, as more people use the MacOS more people will target it.

I'm not a Mac zealot by any stretch, I would never try to tell a casual user to switch OS's, Wh bother learning a new OS if the one your using works for you?

It's all about choosing the right tool for the job. That being said, anyone using an Asus Eee for any music? These look neat.

I have an Eee I use for music PLAYING. It might have the horsepower to do a single track at a time. I wouldn't try anything... elaborate with it at all.

 

[nsmar4211]

The reason every operating system will be buggy is because of the vast amount of extra schtuff we users throw at it. I for one wouldn't want to design an OS...... because the vast amount of testing and cross compatibility and and and just boggles the mind. So you come out with something that works with 1,000 other pieces of software and hardware ....someone out there has an ancient printer that it won't work with. There are just SO many different kinds of hardware and software items out there... I wouldn't expect an OS to be backwards compatible with *all* of them. That's like expecting a string maker to make a string that would work with ALL basses.......someone's got one it won't work with.

Now, there was talk that MS wasn't releasing the information down the line that the hardware people needed to make updated drivers fast enough. *this* is a different issue. Were they playing their cards close to the chest to stop people from hacking the OS? Or was it an issue that hardware people would like to have years to make drivers and would never be happy with the timeframes they are given? .........

 

[kevinmoore73]

I have been involved in computer security for years, all the OS's have their fair share, as more people use the MacOS more people will target it.

I see this statement all the time. To me, it indicates a lack of understanding for how virus writers think. The Mac isn't targeted less often because fewer people use it. For hackers, they want nothing more than to be the guy that comes up with the first big Mac exploit. Not only would they get a lot of notoriety in black-hat circles for finally "breaking" OS X, they could likely use the same exploit to attack any other UNIX system, and enjoy even more fame.

I guarantee there are guys out there that have made it their life's mission to create successful Mac viruses. Whether they are successful or not does not depend on the number of Mac users. (It has as much to do with how many grains of sand surround Jamaica.) It has a lot more to to with how the various UNIX operating systems were designed.

Security is at the very heart of UNIX-based operating systems. DOS and Windows were not developed with security in mind. Microsoft has been trying to improve that situation in recent years, but it's still a bit like putting lipstick on a pig. I think Microsoft is going to have to start from scratch in order to truly get it right.

 

[kevinmoore73]

The reason every operating system will be buggy is because of the vast amount of extra schtuff we users throw at it.

It's sad when that's all the better one can expect from an operating system. To me, it's unacceptable. I see no reason why Microsoft can't implement a driver API or hardware abstraction layer that can handle old/buggy hardware or drivers without bringing down the whole OS.

I have software that can crash Windows XP so hard I need to hit the reset button to recover. For comparison, I've had to do that exactly zero times on my Linux machine in the last ten years.

 

[Selta]

It's sad when that's all the better one can expect from an operating system. To me, it's unacceptable. I see no reason why Microsoft can't implement a driver API or hardware abstraction layer that can handle old/buggy hardware or drivers without bringing down the whole OS.

I have software that can crash Windows XP so hard I need to hit the reset button to recover. For comparison, I've had to do that exactly zero times on my Linux machine in the last ten years.

And I have hardware to refuses to work on absolutly any distribution of *nix. I've posted on forums, asked "gurus" and such, and no one is able to get that specific hardware combination to work anywhere near properly.
No OS is perfect. In fact, they're all far from it. But, it's also an impossible situation to have a perfect OS, due to the un-numberable possibility of hardware and software combinations.

You have a piece of software that crahses Windows? Oh boy. Sounds like a poorly written application, to me. I'm sure though if you told any developer to write software, that a user voluntairly installs on a machine, with the sole intent on "crashing" it, pretty much anyone worth their weight in salt in programming can accomplish that.

 

[kevinmoore73]

You have a piece of software that crahses Windows? Oh boy. Sounds like a poorly written application, to me. I'm sure though if you told any developer to write software, that a user voluntairly installs on a machine, with the sole intent on "crashing" it, pretty much anyone worth their weight in salt in programming can accomplish that.

Sure, it's a poorly written application. But there's a big difference between "poorly written" and "written with intent to crash", isn't there? There is absolutely no good reason whatsoever that a poorly written application should halt my entire computer. In Windows, people think this is normal or expected. In the UNIX world, people eat their effing HATS when an application halts a machine. My point is that it amazes me that people accept (and sometimes even defend!) frequent operating system crashes. It's just crappy programming all around, but people act like it's great.

Would you be happy if you car stopped running as often as your computer crashes? Would you be happy if your fridge stopped working because you didn't put the carrots in the right drawer? It's the same type of thing. Dare to dream. Dare to expect more.

 

[adammazza]

I see this statement all the time. To me, it indicates a lack of understanding for how virus writers think. The Mac isn't targeted less often because fewer people use it. For hackers, they want nothing more than to be the guy that comes up with the first big Mac exploit. Not only would they get a lot of notoriety in black-hat circles for finally "breaking" OS X, they could likely use the same exploit to attack any other UNIX system, and enjoy even more fame.

I guarantee there are guys out there that have made it their life's mission to create successful Mac viruses. Whether they are successful or not does not depend on the number of Mac users. (It has as much to do with how many grains of sand surround Jamaica.) It has a lot more to to with how the various UNIX operating systems were designed.

Security is at the very heart of UNIX-based operating systems. DOS and Windows were not developed with security in mind. Microsoft has been trying to improve that situation in recent years, but it's still a bit like putting lipstick on a pig. I think Microsoft is going to have to start from scratch in order to truly get it right.

A virus is not the same as a local or remote exploit (usually). I agree there are people out there that are concentrating on the Mac OS, but the more users a platform has, the more attention it draws.

ALso not every Unix is created equal when it comes to security. I would go as far as too argue that a standard Vista install is more secure then a standard Redhat install.

MacOS has its roots in BSD though and the general flavors of BSD (especially OpenBSD) are considered the most secure OS's around.

Adam

 

[Selta]

Sure, it's a poorly written application. But there's a big difference between "poorly written" and "written with intent to crash", isn't there? There is absolutely no good reason whatsoever that a poorly written application should halt my entire computer. In Windows, people think this is normal or expected. In the UNIX world, people eat their effing HATS when an application halts a machine. My point is that it amazes me that people accept (and sometimes even defend!) frequent operating system crashes. It's just crappy programming all around, but people act like it's great.

Would you be happy if you car stopped running as often as your computer crashes? Would you be happy if your fridge stopped working because you didn't put the carrots in the right drawer? It's the same type of thing. Dare to dream. Dare to expect more.

Trust me, I use Gentoo as much as the next guy in line here . I'm not defending just windows, but software in general. I hate poorly written applications. I hate even more, paying for said applications.
I don't accept a computer halting, under any circumstances. However, I can hoesntly say I only had my Vista machine halt once so far, and it was a hardware issue (video card overheated - I had it overclocked, so it was my fault anyway...).

With all of that said, the thing that windows has is user base. A rather (at least when it comes to computers) illerate base who would rather deal with the issues continually rather than spending a couple of months learning new (and arguably better) software. That's not going to change any time soon, either. Dell and HP need to build computers to sell. Windows sells for them.

Example: Wal Mart recently did a what, 6 or 12 month expirement where they had boxes with Linux (Ubuntu) right beside the ones with XP/Vista. They cut the expirement short, because the Linux boxes not only undersold their expectations, but in fact, hardly sold at all.

While it's arguable that their money is in Server world, even there you don't see everyone flocking to Linux anymore. You have the corporations with the IT guys who are either ignored when they try to go to the higher ups who don't know how to pronounce Linux, let alone know what it is, or who are content with their systems. Or, have a users who they'd rather not re-train on the "new" OS/softwares.

With all of that said, I think I'm going to bow out of this thread. We've derailed it enough, IMO. I think we're seeing the same light, just through different lenses.

Is Vista "fixed"? Depends on what you considered "broken".

 

[kevinmoore73]

While it's arguable that their money is in Server world, even there you don't see everyone flocking to Linux anymore. You have the corporations with the IT guys who are either ignored when they try to go to the higher ups who don't know how to pronounce Linux, let alone know what it is, or who are content with their systems. Or, have a users who they'd rather not re-train on the "new" OS/softwares.

Maybe you see this where you work, but I'm seeing the complete opposite. Our shop used to be exclusively HP-UX and Solaris. The shift has been to move to Linux for almost everything. I actually don't know of a new Sun or HP-UX machine that's been installed in the last year. All new and replacement machines have been Linux machines. This same thing is taking place at companies where my friends and relatives work.

We're even ditching some of our paid software like WebLogic and SunOne in favor of Tomcat and JBoss. We're doing this not only because it's cheaper, but because it is proving to be more stable.

 

[SERPENT865]

I want a Mac F#$@ Vista

 

[adammazza]

Maybe you see this where you work, but I'm seeing the complete opposite. Our shop used to be exclusively HP-UX and Solaris. The shift has been to move to Linux for almost everything. I actually don't know of a new Sun or HP-UX machine that's been installed in the last year. All new and replacement machines have been Linux machines. This same thing is taking place at companies where my friends and relatives work.

We're even ditching some of our paid software like WebLogic and SunOne in favor of Tomcat and JBoss. We're doing this not only because it's cheaper, but because it is proving to be more stable.

Same here, I was the Unix Manager at Kaplan and most of our systems were migrated to Linux. I'm personally not a huge fan but I understand the cost benefit. Only thing that we didn't move or actually moved back to Solaris was Oracle because it was more stable (needed stable 64 bit support). We also moved off of Dynamo/Weblogic onto jboss.

Adam

 

[MascisMan]

With all of that said, the thing that windows has is user base. A rather (at least when it comes to computers) illerate base who would rather deal with the issues continually rather than spending a couple of months learning new (and arguably better) software. That's not going to change any time soon, either. Dell and HP need to build computers to sell. Windows sells for them.

Example: Wal Mart recently did a what, 6 or 12 month expirement where they had boxes with Linux (Ubuntu) right beside the ones with XP/Vista. They cut the expirement short, because the Linux boxes not only undersold their expectations, but in fact, hardly sold at all.

Your first comment I quoted answers your second comment. Windows has a larger user base than OSX or Linux. Thats why Wal-Mart sold more Windows boxes. It was because average users are familiar with the product and just want to do email, internet, and chatting.

Furthermore blaming Windows problems on an illiterate user base is ridiculous in my opinion. If there were facts to prove this, wouldn't it be in Microsoft's best interest to make their OS as "dummy" proof as possible rather than employ a mindset of "well the smart people will figure it out?" Maybe Microsoft realizes that it doesn't matter what they roll out, people will keep flocking because of familiarity and the general fear to try something new. Which basically leads to a drop in overall quality.