Micro$oft pulls pre-SP1 update for Vista.

[Soapy Sam]

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=12199

[balrog666]

Ugh!

[Morrigan]

I hate Vista so bloody much. I really regret having kept it instead of putting back Win2K on this machine...

[GreNME]

Because it would have been better had they left a flawed update out there to be downloaded? I don't get the outrage.

http://image.grenme.com/thread/anti-ms.gif
(comic is copyright the guys over at Penny Arcade, the image here is hosted by me so as to not steal bandwidth from the PA guys)

[SnuggleSmacks]

I recently went on a search for a small Umpc tablet type toy. My #1 criteria was that it NOT run Vista. Before any other consideration, I looked at the OS. I wound up with a great convertible tablet running XP. I'm happy and all is right with my world.

[Wolfman]

Wow.

Aside from compatibility issues with older hardware and software (and I had exactly the same problems when I first made the transition to XP), I've had no problems with my Vista, and in fact like it better than XP.

And the update? I agree with GreNME.

There's no winning with some people.

MS pumps out updates as quickly as possible, and then people complain because they were released too fast, without enough testing, and it turns out that they are buggy, and cause more problems than they solve.

MS decides to delay the release of an update, in order to make sure that it works as intended, and to make a more complete upgrade...and people complain about that!

I'm no huge MS fan. But an awful lot of the moaning and complaining I hear these days tends to be based more on "I will complain about anything that MS does, regardless of context", than on any real 'skeptical' evaluation.

[Soapy Sam]

Maybeso, but when I pay a ludicrous amount of money for a new OS, I think it reasonable that it should work and work better than its predecessor. That has not been my experience with Vista.

[gotroot?]

One thing I don't understand is that people pay all this money for Microsoft products when there are literally dozens of other alternatives that are just as good at little to no cost. Ubuntu Linux [for example] is a free OS that you can download off their website. It uses less than HALF the RAM that Vista does (actually less than XP does too) and as a result it is much faster. Now as for usability, it couldn't be easier (contrary to what most people believe). Since the release of Gusty Gibbon 7.10 everything in this OS runs just as smooth as Windows. Oh... and all the software is free. There are very good Linux alternatives for almost any piece of Microsoft software you can think of, and its all free. Anyway my point is that people should look for other solutions rather than getting ripped off paying $200+ dollars for a piece of software that doesn't even work properly.

[quixotecoyote]

One thing I don't understand is that people pay all this money for Microsoft products when there are literally dozens of other alternatives that are just as good at little to no cost. Ubuntu Linux [for example] is a free OS that you can download off their website. It uses less than HALF the RAM that Vista does (actually less than XP does too) and as a result it is much faster. Now as for usability, it couldn't be easier (contrary to what most people believe). Since the release of Gusty Gibbon 7.10 everything in this OS runs just as smooth as Windows. Oh... and all the software is free. There are very good Linux alternatives for almost any piece of Microsoft software you can think of, and its all free. Anyway my point is that people should look for other solutions rather than getting ripped off paying $200+ dollars for a piece of software that doesn't even work properly.

Because you don't make the transition from elitist subculture to mass market appeal overnight.

[Damien Evans]

Wow.

Aside from compatibility issues with older hardware and software (and I had exactly the same problems when I first made the transition to XP), I've had no problems with my Vista, and in fact like it better than XP.

And the update? I agree with GreNME.

There's no winning with some people.

MS pumps out updates as quickly as possible, and then people complain because they were released too fast, without enough testing, and it turns out that they are buggy, and cause more problems than they solve.

MS decides to delay the release of an update, in order to make sure that it works as intended, and to make a more complete upgrade...and people complain about that!

I'm no huge MS fan. But an awful lot of the moaning and complaining I hear these days tends to be based more on "I will complain about anything that MS does, regardless of context", than on any real 'skeptical' evaluation.

I was about to say exactly the same thing. I've never had a problem with my Vista.

[gotroot?]

Because you don't make the transition from elitist subculture to mass market appeal overnight.

I realize that, I guess most people just don't care about the other options and just stick with what they've always known... even if it is kind of expensive :boggled:

[GreNME]

Some people need things like AutoCAD or a reasonable Flash editor to run on their computers.

[quixotecoyote]

I realize that, I guess most people just don't care about the other options and just stick with what they've always known... even if it is kind of expensive :boggled:

If you realize what I said, then why say that people don't care about other options? It's not about not caring about other options, it's about a negative perception of the other options brought on by years of techie subculture competing to use the most user-unfriendly operating systems to measure their digital wangs. Now it's 2008 and these same people are trying to say that the same systems that were used as badges of the uber-geek are now easier to use than Windows. Why are you surprised at the cold reception?

[gotroot?]

If you realize what I said, then why say that people don't care about other options? It's not about not caring about other options, it's about a negative perception of the other options brought on by years of techie subculture competing to use the most user-unfriendly operating systems to measure their digital wangs. Now it's 2008 and these same people are trying to say that the same systems that were used as badges of the uber-geek are now easier to use than Windows. Why are you surprised at the cold reception?

I'm not, and this isn't really what I set out to argue. I was just saying that I would think more people would look for other options than Microsoft software (not necessarily the OS) considering the high cost (Linux was only an example). But this is not the case. Since most people have used Microsoft and Mac for ages, they assume that it is just easier to go with either of these two rather than learning how to use a whole new piece of software. When, in reality, most of the products are almost exactly the same.

[GreNME]

If you realize what I said, then why say that people don't care about other options? It's not about not caring about other options, it's about a negative perception of the other options brought on by years of techie subculture competing to use the most user-unfriendly operating systems to measure their digital wangs. Now it's 2008 and these same people are trying to say that the same systems that were used as badges of the uber-geek are now easier to use than Windows. Why are you surprised at the cold reception?

Precisely.

Systems today are about the same. I could get someone up and running on any of them, all else being equal. But all else isn't equal, and perception goes a long way into whether something new or different is acceptable to the average person.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

One thing I don't understand is that people pay all this money for Microsoft products when there are literally dozens of other alternatives that are just as good at little to no cost. Ubuntu Linux [for example] is a free OS that you can download off their website. It uses less than HALF the RAM that Vista does (actually less than XP does too) and as a result it is much faster. Now as for usability, it couldn't be easier (contrary to what most people believe). Since the release of Gusty Gibbon 7.10 everything in this OS runs just as smooth as Windows. Oh... and all the software is free. There are very good Linux alternatives for almost any piece of Microsoft software you can think of, and its all free. Anyway my point is that people should look for other solutions rather than getting ripped off paying $200+ dollars for a piece of software that doesn't even work properly.
Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman. You want me to change my entire working environment to avoid paying $200? Let's do the math: Even valuing my time at a lousy $50 per hour, it would have to take me less than 4 hours to make this change and not lose money in the bargain. Estimating conservatively, I would guess such a change would require a month of full time investigation, planning, application acquisition, installation, and reprogramming. Oh, and then all my subcontractors would be running the wrong system.

That said, I certainly have not switched to Vista from XP.

~~ Paul

[jnelso99]

One thing I don't understand is that people pay all this money for Microsoft products when there are literally dozens of other alternatives that are just as good at little to no cost. Ubuntu Linux [for example] is a free OS that you can download off their website. It uses less than HALF the RAM that Vista does (actually less than XP does too) and as a result it is much faster. Now as for usability, it couldn't be easier (contrary to what most people believe). Since the release of Gusty Gibbon 7.10 everything in this OS runs just as smooth as Windows. Oh... and all the software is free. There are very good Linux alternatives for almost any piece of Microsoft software you can think of, and its all free. Anyway my point is that people should look for other solutions rather than getting ripped off paying $200+ dollars for a piece of software that doesn't even work properly.

My issue is that Linux doesn't seem compatible with my hardware. Ubuntu 7.10 will not boot (via live CD) or install on my system which has an abit IP35-PRO motherboard, and, looking at both the Ubuntu and abit forums, you'll be lucky if you get any Linux to work on such a system. I've read that Ubuntu 8.X has this fixed, so I'll wait until then before making any attempt at physically installing Linux on this system (making it an XP-Vista-Linux triple boot) and instead play with Linux using VMware.

Also, last I checked, 802.11n hardware support is VERY spotty at best, and the only hope one has is if the hardware manufacturer specifically releases Linux drivers. Luckily, I found such an adapter, but obviously I haven't been able to try it out yet.

Plus, I doubt a segment of the Windows users will permanently switch to Linux unless all of their games are supported with no loss of performance.

And XP is working just fine for me, thank you very much.

[JonnyFive]

Protip: You can get a system builder copy of Vista for $99.

I haven't noticed any major issues with Vista, although I wish they had bothered to fix the whole "install a new motherboard and have fun reinstalling Windows to get it to work" thing from XP.

[GreNME]

Protip: You can get a system builder copy of Vista for $99.

I haven't noticed any major issues with Vista, although I wish they had bothered to fix the whole "install a new motherboard and have fun reinstalling Windows to get it to work" thing from XP.

They kinda did, in that "there's a way to do it now but it's still a huge pain in the tuckus" kind of way. If you want, I can see if I can find you the documentation for the process that can be utilized to accomplish this.

[JonnyFive]

They kinda did, in that "there's a way to do it now but it's still a huge pain in the tuckus" kind of way. If you want, I can see if I can find you the documentation for the process that can be utilized to accomplish this.

That would be nice, if there was a way to do it without my having to reinstall XP (it's a Vista upgrade install), then upgrade back to Vista.

[GreNME]

That would be nice, if there was a way to do it without my having to reinstall XP (it's a Vista upgrade install), then upgrade back to Vista.

Oooh, ouch. That might actually cause some problems, but only might. Let me check the documentation. You very well may want to do the "trick" to use the upgrade install disk to install Vista alone (I can help you there, too). I did notice that I've had fewer problems since I did that to my own install.

[SnuggleSmacks]

One thing I don't understand is that people pay all this money for Microsoft products when there are literally dozens of other alternatives that are just as good at little to no cost. Ubuntu Linux [for example] is a free OS that you can download off their website. It uses less than HALF the RAM that Vista does (actually less than XP does too) and as a result it is much faster. Now as for usability, it couldn't be easier (contrary to what most people believe). Since the release of Gusty Gibbon 7.10 everything in this OS runs just as smooth as Windows. Oh... and all the software is free. There are very good Linux alternatives for almost any piece of Microsoft software you can think of, and its all free. Anyway my point is that people should look for other solutions rather than getting ripped off paying $200+ dollars for a piece of software that doesn't even work properly.


When I was looking for UMPC/Tablets I basically considered ANYTHING but Vista. Meaning Linux, Leopard, older versions of Windows...I went with an XP machine simply because it offered the other things that were high on my list...fast processor, adequate memory, WiFi/Bluetooth, and a reasonably sized hard drive.

Many of the machines in the size I was looking for were simply not capable of running Vista. It's a rather clumsy OS.

XP is smaller, faster, and more stable, and will run more easily on Ultra-Mobile sized machines.

Linux is even smaller and faster, and I would have been quite happy with that, had I found a Linux machine which had the other specs I needed.

After searching for the most machine in the smallest size with the smallest price tag, I certainly was not going to invest more in an OS or in software that would be compatible with a new OS.

[JonnyFive]

Oooh, ouch. That might actually cause some problems, but only might. Let me check the documentation. You very well may want to do the "trick" to use the upgrade install disk to install Vista alone (I can help you there, too). I did notice that I've had fewer problems since I did that to my own install.

Well, let me know what's involved and I'll see.

[BenBurch]

I my work we have nothing BUT trouble with Vista.

Two nearly identical computers running Vista render the same web page VERY differently in some cases!

And they always crash.

I mean ALWAYS.

And they crash and then don't work correctly when they reboot, and we have to restore them from backups or re-install.

Its a royal PITA.

And there was no excuse for it, given the FORTUNE Microsoft spent developing this thing.

The road forward for MS?

Either make the next windows a layer based on WINE on top of Linux or BSD or abandon the OS business and start working on Excel for Linux.

[Morrigan]

Wolfman, even as a somewhat rabid Microsoft hater, I still acknowledge it when they do something right. For example, the Xbox 360's feature for streaming videos to the TV is very nice indeed, and I like that wireless adapter for using the Xbox headset and mic on my PC - quite cool gadgets. And Windows 2000 was a solid, stable, reliable and well-made OS as well as being user-friendly, without insulting my intelligence. And while I've never developed in .NET, it seems like quite the powerful framework.

But I have had way too many problems with VISTA (which came with my new computer) and only the dread at the thought of having to reinstall -everything- is stopping me from going back to Win2K. Thus I am impatient for the service pack, as I'm kind of hoping it will resolve many of my problems.

I'm a Microsoft hater not for the sake of it or because they are big and rich (I don't hate Google), but because in my experience, the great majority of their products that I've used have gone from mediocre to utter crap (inversely, I have found Google products to be quite satisfactory for the most part, and I don't recall ever having yelled out "bloody Google piece of s**t, why won't you work properly?!"). When they do get something right, I have no problem admitting to it. And while I am happy to use alternatives for myself, as a web developer I HAVE to make my sites work with Internet Explorer, and writing non-standards, dirty hacks and workarounds and breaking compliance is infuriating and time consuming, so it really makes me hate them. *grumbles*

[GreNME]

Well, let me know what's involved and I'll see.

Sorry I haven't responded earlier, but I searched through my list of links and can't seem to find it, neither here at work nor at home. It basically involves treating your system like you're prepping it for an image (like sysprep for XP), but with a few other steps involved to ensure the HAL (for which all the drivers are used) can detect the new hardware and search for more applicable drivers. It's easier with XP because there are some "generic" CPU and mainboard drivers you can choose before sysprepping to better ensure it will transition with minimal problems. At least to the point where you can boot into it and start installing more adequate drivers and stuff.

Vista has supposedly made the imaging process easier, but I haven't actually used that method so I can't speak for it personally. I do know it works for XP, though, and if you (running as admin) have the same level of system access it should theoretically be no problem to do the same with Vista.

[JonnyFive]

Sorry I haven't responded earlier, but I searched through my list of links and can't seem to find it, neither here at work nor at home. It basically involves treating your system like you're prepping it for an image (like sysprep for XP), but with a few other steps involved to ensure the HAL (for which all the drivers are used) can detect the new hardware and search for more applicable drivers. It's easier with XP because there are some "generic" CPU and mainboard drivers you can choose before sysprepping to better ensure it will transition with minimal problems. At least to the point where you can boot into it and start installing more adequate drivers and stuff.

Vista has supposedly made the imaging process easier, but I haven't actually used that method so I can't speak for it personally. I do know it works for XP, though, and if you (running as admin) have the same level of system access it should theoretically be no problem to do the same with Vista.

Well, no rush, I'll see what I can dig up at home then. If you happen to find or remember some more details, just send me a PM or something.