Visual Tour: 20 Things You Won't Like About Windows Vista

Computerworld ^ | June 01, 2006 | Scot Finnie

[Swordmaker]

The same thing happened with Windows XP. When Beta 2 arrived, I found myself torn between what was new and good about the operating system, and what was new and bad.

Significant negatives back in 2001 included product activation (which doesn't affect Microsoft volume licensing customers), changes to the network-configuration user interface and the way XP interacted with other versions of Windows on small networks. Was Windows XP truly better than Windows 2000? It was a toss-up in many ways. In the end, I went with the improved app compatibility and user interface improvements of XP. But it wasn't by much.

Well, Microsoft just upped the ante on internal conflict with the release of Vista Beta 2. It boils down to this: The software giant is favoring security and IT controls over end-user productivity. Don't get me wrong, security and IT manageability are very good things. But some of the people actually using the Beta 2 Vista software describe their experience as akin to that of a rat caught in a maze.

[BJungNan]

[Mr. Blonde]

Inability to function with the outside world? I don't have any problems with that.

Here are the reasons I like my Mac better than the last PC I had

No need to run anti-virus and anti-spyware programs which means my computer is up and running and ready to do what I want to do faster.

Expose, I quickly became addicted to being able to hit a button and select which program I want to switch to.

iChat A/V, PCs have similar programs for video chatting but none are of the quality that iChat is IMHO.

Dashboard, it doesn't do anything huge for me but I like clicking on it to see what the local movie times are, what the cheapest gas in my area is and what the temperature is. Can't do that on a PC until Vista comes out

I like MS Office better on a Mac. It is more intuitive to me. Not to mention the formatting palette is right there to use instead of having to go into a menu. You may be able to have one of those on a PC but it is not obvious to me like it is on a Mac.

I can put a lot more things on the screen than a PC can. When I'm having to use the internet to find something to put in Word, both Word and Safari will resize to much smaller than IE or Firefox on a PC without using a scroll bar. Both will fit on the screen so I don't have to switch between having one on top.

Macs are tougher than PCs. I convinced my dad to switch after he bought a high end Toshiba that the screen burnt out on after a month and Toshiba wouldn't fix it. His Mac was dropped by his airline while traveling. Despite having a big dent in the side it still runs like a champ.

To make sure his computer was fine we took it to an Apple store and had them look at it (for free) instead of calling someone who doesn't speak english as a first language. And if we were to call someone it would be one number for both hardware and software.
Spotlight, I can search and find things much easier on my Mac than I ever could on a PC.

When my sister got a digital camera for Christmas we had to load two cds worth of programs on her PC to get it to recognize the camera. When I plugged it into my computer, iPhoto launched and was ready to start importing photos.

Integration of iTunes into the operating system. Because Limewire knows I use iTunes it automatically transfers downloads to iTunes instead of me having to do so manually.

The Dock, if I want to launch a new program I don't have to either minimize everything on my desktop to click on the icon or go into the start menu and find it, it is most likely right there at the bottom of the screen already.

These are just the things I use on my comptuer that I like better than what I had on a PC. Others who use the pro applications might have more stuff for you.

[rzeznikj at stout]

Er, Apple and MS run on two different business models.

Apple makes hardware and software. MS only makes software.

Suppose they release a version of Leopard for your run of the mill x86 PC and charge $200 for it.

But at what cost? If scores of people buy that version of OSX and use it, that means they're not going to buy Mac hardware--which is a key element in their continued solvency.

Simply put, unless OSX significantly outpaces Windows sales, Apple cannot afford to make a generic x86 version--it would most likely be a suicidal move.

Not to say it can't be done though--just clearly not very likely to succeed.

[Terpfen]

Linux has yet to achieve parity with XP. It ain't going to somehow catch up to Vista by next summer.

[freedumb2003]

I got a look at the early Sun OS offering (don't ask how or I'll have to kill you) -- it was extremely cool, with flip-over 3D windows and an awesome UI.

It was also buggy and crashed 3 times during the demo, which was given by the ponytailed, jeans-wearing VP of Technology.

[Echo Talon]

yea, I have tried all the betas of the Ubuntu variants, over the last month... I just thought maybe they made a bunch of improvements in the noob "user friendly area" with the distribution release.

[Terpfen]

3D windows don't impress me. Okay, so I can rotate windows into the background... encouraging me to open more windows, which means I've just lost track of everything I've got open, and I have to go back and flip all these windows again to find the one I'm looking for.

Sometimes I really wonder how much sway the UI designers at OS vendors have... assuming they have UI designers at all.

Though, to be fair, Vista's implementation is going to be far worse, because of the taskbar.

[Swordmaker]

here other examples, dont feel like looking them up

Most of those will work fine with lower versions of OS X... it was just that after OS X 10.2.8 , the Wacom drivers were built in to OS X and are plug-and-play without downloading and installing drivers.

[Echo Talon]

The Apple marketing around its OS seems kind of like "smoke & mirrors", I always though all those "different" version of OSX were free updates... but they are different, why does Apple continue to use the OS X name? pretty confusing.

[Swordmaker]

"Tiger" should be called OS XIII

Perhaps... but the reason for name OS X is multifold... including the fact that the X is related to uniX... and probably because it is "cool". Apple has stated that the operating system is "Macintosh OS X" and will remain so... This is a marketing decision, not an engineering one.

The versions are 10.x.y where .x increments represent major paid upgrades with additional functionality and possible compatibility changes and .y increments represent minor upgrades and fixes that tightens up code and are available for free. Security patches which may be released with or independent of increments as needed generally do not have an indicator but Software Update will download and install them automatically.

I suspect that eventually, Apple will move to OS X 11.x.y and then 12.x.y and so on. Or perhaps they will institutionalize the Big cat approach more than they already have.

[Swordmaker]

What a joke. There is no advantage of a Mac that justifies it inability to function with the outside world. It does not do anything better.

As pointed out before, BJ, your experience is far from the norm... and it has to be something YOU or your company is doing wrong. Until you provide us with specific version numbers of both your software and hardware you will be ignored.

[Echo Talon]

maybe they should move to OS X "11.XXX" sooner rather than later, seems to be pretty confusing, and if they have minor service packs have them labled like 11.25, 11.5, 11.75, then the next cat version they use would be 12.XXX and so on...

[Swordmaker]

The Apple marketing around its OS seems kind of like "smoke & mirrors", I always though all those "different" version of OSX were free updates... but they are different, why does Apple continue to use the OS X name? pretty confusing.

Windows should be free for anything that is called Windows if you've purchased it once?

Windows1 you pay for, then Windows2, Win3, Win3.1, Win95, WinNT, WinNT4, Win98, Win98se, Win2000, WinME, WinCE, WinXP Home, WinXP Pro, WinXP Home SP2, WinXP Pro SP2... all the rest free for the rest of your life??

I don't think so.

Now Windows users get to pay $50 a year for security and safe computing... which should be part of the operating system.

[dennisw]

bttt

[Swordmaker]

maybe they should move to OS X "11.XXX" sooner rather than later, seems to be pretty confusing, and if they have minor service packs have them labled like 11.25, 11.5, 11.75, then the next cat version they use would be 12.XXX and so on...

Why? Only you Windows users seem to have any problem with it. What's with LINUX and Aftrican names??? You want to talk "Confusing"...

[Echo Talon]

Windows 2000 Service pack 4, Apple would have charged you 4 times..

[Echo Talon]

you dont have to pay for antivirus or firewall, plenty of free ones on the market
majorgeeks.com

[Echo Talon]

not to mention all the service packs for WinNT

[Echo Talon]

Now Windows users get to pay $50 a year for security and safe computing... which should be part of the operating system.

hmmm, then people complain that MS is a monopoly... I think Symantec has already started complaing about Vista.

[tacticalogic]

While not explicity part of Vista, I think one of the best things to come out of the Vista/Longhorn effort may be PowerShell (aka Monad).