The case against Vista
April 19th, 2007
Microsoft claims Vista was a success (or do they?).
True, millions of copies sold, but, most of these copies turn out to have been preinstalled on new PC’s.
So, the average consumer is quite clearly not really interested in Vista. In fact, many consumers still request Wicrosoft Windows XP, INSTEAD of Vista. Microsoft has reacted to this in predictable fashion: by announcing that XP will no longer be available via OEM channels by 2008
So, what’s really wrong with Vista, and how will it affect you?
Extreme hardware requirements..
Windows XP is a stable reliable OS, with modest requirements: 128MB ram and 1-2 GB hard disk space (As little as a 500MB install when tweaked). Vista needs nearly 10 times XP’s requirements, i.e. 1GB ram and 10GB hard disk space. If this trend continues, we can expect Vista’s successor to require 10GB ram and 100GB hard disk space. Does this seem absurd? So did 1GB of ram seem, just a few years ago.
…few benefits
Aside from it’s Aero interface, most of the benefits in Vista were already available in Windows XP SP2. 10X hardware requirements does not translate to 10X improved performance.
DRM
Vista includes various digital rights management features built in. Microsoft argues these features are necessary, for example, to legally play HD DVD’s.
DRM is bad for consumers because it requires an additional resource overhead in terms of wasted disk space, memory, and processing cycles. It also increases hardware cost, and represents a security threat to users: Vista’s DRM features have the ability to (in theory) disable certain hardware components (or put them into reduced functionaly mode)
Lastly, integrating DRM features into hardware would mean more expense for the manufacturer: A cost invaribly passed onto the consumer. when you buy a graphics card, you would end up paying for Hardware/Software DRM features and licencing. This cost would be incurred by you even if you do NOT intend to intend to use watch HD-DVD’s with Vista, or even use Vista at all.
The general philisophy behind Microsoft’s DRM is that “This software and hardware is ours. You merely licence it - if you do something that seems even slightly suspicious to us, we can shut down or disable parts of your PC”. As a consumer, I find this philosophy disturbing, to say the least.
The end of the traditional PC as we know it? Disturbing manufacturer tie ups:
More and more manufacturers are being convinced by Microsoft to make Vista only or Vista enhanced hardware. This could be as ‘harmless’ as ensuring that enhanced featurers only work with Vista, or as extreme as Pheonix recently releasing a Vista only Bios [edit: this may not be the case]
For the consumer, this is terrible news. Making hardware OS specific would effectively cripple other operating systems (and increase cost).
Vista’s biggest challenge:
As strange as it may seem, Vista’s biggest challenge is Windows XP itself. XP works on old and new hardware, it’s fast, reliable, and perfectly compatible with Windows software.
Microsoft is reacting to this unusual scenario by slowly and quietly killing off XP. First by stopping OEM sales, then by (eventually) stopping official support.
True, some may argue that this is what Microsoft usually does when it releases a new software package, but this might be the first time that the replacement OS is worse than the existing OS.
So, what could the future hold?
- More Vista only hardware: more and more hardware will be Vista only, or function in a reduced/crippled mode with other OS’s. In time, manufacturers may split product lines, with one line for Vista only products. This will mean increased costs and a lack of choice for consumers
- Forced obsolescence: Whereas XP could comfortably be used on a PII400, Vista requires the latest hardware. This would be OK if people could still buy XP (and obtain support) but it appears that this may not be the case for long. When XP is removed off the market, people would have no choice but to use Vista, if they are looking for a supported Microsoft OS. This would mean purchasing new hardware, and disposing of old hardware.
. Eventually, Microsoft’s goal appears to be to make the PC a closed architecture, like a MAC (and kill off all other operating systems).
Entry Filed under: Microsoft, Vista
18 Comments Add your own
1. jon benge | April 19th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
“this might be the first time that the replacement OS is worse than the existing OS.”
Are you forgetting Windows 98 to ME?
2. n# | April 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
You hav a point there..!
3. Chris Ferro | April 19th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
1) The hardware requirements are 512 megs of memory, not a gig!
2)The UAC system can (and does) cut the potential for viruses and malware by 90%, and those who use vista as a none admin (AKA, those who are in the know) such threats are eliminated.
Those are benefits, and Aero is nice.
3)The DRM is only applied to the windows media player, you have a choice to use a multitude of other players on the market (most free) that are unaffected by the whole DRM FUD.
Keep sticking to this DRM topic, grab for those straws!
You have a choice to not use Vista, you can use some free garbage OS, or shell out twice as much for a mac.
No one is forcing you to even use Vista.
4. Jack | April 19th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Here is a solution to all your problems - BUY OS X
5. n# | April 20th, 2007 at 1:47 am
@chris
- actually using Vista properly requires 1GB. Yes, it can boot up with 512 (but no aero and virtually no free ram).
- I’m proposing XP as an alternative to Vista. Other (possibly better) linux powered free alternatives exist.
- Vista is resource heavy without providing benefits over XP, (unless you can call Aero a benefit) also 90% of the security features in Vista already exist in XP SP2.
6. EmyrB | April 20th, 2007 at 4:56 am
@ Chris,
Actually in a couple of months Microsoft will be forcing “us” to use Vista as it starts to get shipped with new PCs.
Have you actually used any of the “free garbage OS” recently?
I have used Vista since February on the same PC that ran Windows XP with no issues, now the PC crashes 3 or 4 times a day and its not such a low spec PC either.
My professional opinion to customers is stick with XP for as long as possible as Vista offers nothing new or exciting (Aero doesn’t do it for me, Apple and Linux offer better eye candy) also, Vista users are getting a taste of what life is like without drivers, re nVidia.
7. qx1 | April 20th, 2007 at 6:29 am
Vista isn’t bad, honestly it could be good for consumers who can afford. However, if your on a shoe-string budget like myself and many other college students across the country. An OS that simply insists on the latest hardware is an annoyance. Furthermore, tighter development cycles, and a diverse developer base practically ensure Ubuntu and many other Linux distros will be at the very least, just as advanced as the latest windows distribution.
I’ve taken the liberty of installing ubuntu on my laptop. I’ve gotten rid of windows and I’ll never use it as my primary OS again.
Great Article!
8. ausse | April 20th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Chris Ferro says:
“1) The hardware requirements are 512 megs of memory, not a gig!”
=> Good luck running Vista Ultimate with that much memory! I find it interesting you claim you only need 512MB RAM, when EVERYONE is suggesting you use 1GB to get the “full Vista experience”. (That’s retailers, OEMs, and enthusiasts).
Chris Ferro also says:
“2)The UAC system can (and does) cut the potential for viruses and malware by 90%, and those who use vista as a none admin (AKA, those who are in the know) such threats are eliminated.
Those are benefits, and Aero is nice.”
=> NONE of Vista’s security mechanisms were able to stop the recent ANI vulnerability. MS quickly issued a patch as a result. For those that weren’t able to patch in time, they suffered the infinite crash loop of Explorer. (As in Windows Explorer kept crashing and restarting! You had no choice but to format.)
UAC has been an annoyance for the user. Its a poor blanket of security and DOES NOT address the fundamental security issues with Windows itself. Its a band-aid. NOT a real solution.
AERO is NOTHING. Take a look at what a bunch of volunteers can do on the Linux side. They offer MORE eyecandy with FULL customizations of effects for the user.
…And you know what? They don’t need you to buy a DirectX 9 solution! You can easily do it with an old GF2 series video card on a PIII system with 256MB RAM! And those kinds of systems are cheap as chips!
And Chris Ferro finally says: “You have a choice to not use Vista, you can use some free garbage OS, or shell out twice as much for a mac.
No one is forcing you to even use Vista.”
=> What’s real ironic is that the “free garbage OS” is BETTER than the MS PAID GARBAGE that is called Vista! Its MORE secure than Vista. It has BETTER memory management than Vista. Its built on proven principles of Unix, unlike Vista. Its really flexible, not like Vista.
And guess what? It keeps your money in your pocket for other things…UNLIKE Vista!
Microsoft IS forcing you to use Vista.
(1) They’re ending OEM sales of WinXP by end of this year. Any new machine from 2008 will have Vista and nothing else.
(2) They DELIBRATELY use DirectX 10 as a mechanism to force gamers to upgrade.
Microsoft is repeating its strategy like it did with WinXP. This tone is getting OLD. People are realising this and aren’t even bothering with Vista until its really necessary.
Its only sad people like you who are blindly defending garbage. WAKE UP and SMELL THE COFFEE. You’ve been had by Microsoft Marketing!
9. Ruwan | April 22nd, 2007 at 7:31 am
It’s pitty few people talk about Windows Vista knowing less than 10% of what it can do.
n# - it’s good that there is competition - and I say your distro’s are also good.
But for people who are on a commercial environment - they don’t need Vista Ultimate - and they don’t want 1GB RAM. If you say 90% of the features came with Windows XP - you got to have lot of READING to do. B’coz you should not compare if you don’t know about the product.
10. n# | April 23rd, 2007 at 1:57 am
@Ruwan: do tell me what features Vista has that XP does not have? (aside from the obvious few)
11. petercintn | July 28th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I am no MS fanboy. I’ve been using MS though since DOS 2.0. There have been good and awful releases of MS’s OSs. But you need to stop singing the praises of XP.. The truth is that when released it got just as bad post as yours about Vista now. The truth is that none, not one of EA games designed for 98 worked on XP, and never did. (At least the dozen or so I owned). SP2 screwed up the works for a lot of software till it was patched.
The fact is that XP is a mature OS now. But you seem to forget it too went through some growing pains.
I’ve tried out some of the linux OSs and not one of them is easily maintained for the average user, and just forget it if you game. Everybody is behind MS when it comes to gaming.
I guess I’m lucky, able at this time to upgrade, so all of my hardware works on the 64-bit version of Vista, but I do have over three year old hardware (printer & camera) that worked with no drivers that I had to install, and I can’t do that with XP.
Oh, when XP came out, I had to upgrade my hardware cause it wouldn’t run with XP. That is going to be a constant throughout our collective PC experiance. Hey it’s good for the economy!
12. Michael | August 14th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
“Are you forgetting Windows 98 to ME?”
I wish I could forget this. But Microsoft didn’t kill off 98 to force users to switch to ME. Instead, they continued to support 98 until 2000 Professional became available. They might have even waited until XP came out, but I don’t recall; I was solidly into the Linux camp by then.
13. TiredOfIdiots | August 14th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
@Chris
What are you talking about? Protected Video Path has nothing to do with Media Player. It’s built into the OS layer, and good luck using any new technology without it. MS isn’t being the only menace here, but they sure did lie down with the beast. If you don’t believe it, just educate yourself a bit before accusing people of overreacting.
14. zaphod | August 15th, 2007 at 8:10 am
“this might be the first time that the replacement OS is worse than the existing OS.”
Are you forgetting Windows 98 to ME?”
And win 2000 to xp (ok, xp is better but the difference is marginal)
i was perfectly happy with my w2k system until everything started requiring xp without any reason. most just refused to install. (but worked fine if you managed to get around it)
15. FedUP | August 15th, 2007 at 9:44 am
There are a couple of clues that lead me to believe you are a complete idiot.
1. You are still using and defending that TURD of an os “Windoze”.
2. You really believe that a Mac “costs twice as much”.
Linux is pretty decent but it’s still difficult for the average user to comprehend. The Mac OS is a healthy stable, and now, CERTIFIED UNIX operating system. It is as simple as you want, or as complex as you need. The reason it seems expensive is because Apple doesn’t sell crap. If you were to pull your head out of Microsofts a-hole and actually compare exactly same spec’d machines, you would find that the Macintosh is actually cheaper than most Windoze units. Yes, you can scour the bowels of the internet searching for the absolutely cheapest junk components to build your own machine with, but the vast majority of computer users do not build their own computers, or even upgrade components aside from maybe the hard drive.
I have both Windoze and Mac computers. I will not upgrade beyond WinXP Pro. It’s a decent product compared to the Wins of past but it still falls FAR short of anything my Mac can do. And luckily the very few products I needed to use Windoze for, I have found replacements to.
When the rest of my crappy Win PC’s die (1 down 2 to go), they will be replaced by Macs. I have a Dual500 G4 I bought in December of 1999 that is still running strong after being used as an edit/special effects workstation and server all these years. And yes, I did upgrade the processors to Dual 1.8Ghz this year so don’t complain that you can’t upgrade them.
Ironically enough none of my WinXP workstations will take newer processors and one of them has already died after just 3 years, and if I want to upgrade anything else in them I have to get Micro$oft’s permission to reinstall my OS. Exactly who owns this machine anyway? Another annoyance is that EVERY time I run a software update, it has to update the stupid updater program first and then I have to run software update again. That’s just one example of how it takes several more steps to do anything on a Windoze box.
Oh well, I’m finished with them. Micro$oft can kiss my A$$!
16. apathia | August 15th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Someone mentioned games as a driving Windows seller, which is interesting because one of Microsoft’s latest Games for Windows (Shadowrun) is Vista only. Until someone cracked it for XP, proving that the restriction was only for the purpose of marketing Vista.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see more products forthcoming products artificially restricted to Vista. The OS may never contain a new feature you want, but some MS product might. Microsoft appears desperate enough to force the issue.
17. JRog | August 16th, 2007 at 7:10 am
If gaming is all that is left for Microsoft’s pull in an OS… and Vista is the flagship I think all of us are screwed for another 2 years before this product matures unless we get Direct X 10.xx ported to XP.
I wonder if Microsoft will ever allow “advanced” users vs clueless users to distinguish installation of the OS? see the list of services that can be disabled on this page for Tips and Tricks #1 for Vista. I’m a user who considers Explorer.exe an application.
18. Admin | September 2nd, 2008 at 8:53 am
I just updated my rig (handed down the old one to my sister in-law) and decided to try Vista. Installed it and SP-1 and haven’t had any problems. Everything has worked fine and all of my hardware loaded uo without issues. The year “under it’s belt” and SP-1 seem to have made it as stable as XP (only have had 1 lockup and that was during a launch of an freeware program that turned out not to run under XP either.
Yes it requires more hardware bu then so did Sindows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows NT and so on. On the Mac side OS 6,7,8,9,X all have pushed up the hardware requirements also. That’s how it works. To get more features you need more hardware. The real question it do YOU need the new features. in 90%+ of the users it’s no. But to get them to move (and stop running old os’s and hardware) they “force” some requirements that probably aren’t necessary but in the long term they will appreciate having.
I still get a kick out of my Mac Fanboy friend tho keeps throwing out that the lates Mac OS ‘works fine on older macs’ but when I ask him why he hasn’t upgraded all of his machines to it he says that they run to slow with the new OS!
Leave a Comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed