Jump to content

6 things you don't like about Vista


Spooky
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been fortunate enough to have gained the attention of a group of people dealing with Vista who are willing to listen to suggestions for improvements to Vista and possibly take action to have these improvements included in future patches, add-ons, or 'power toy' type items.

I'd like to gather comments from this community (i'm already getting feed back from others). This is not a rant thread, its for real information gathering purposes. The rules are simple; list 6 items that satisfy the following criteria in the context of things that should have been but wern't done properly, should have been better, or could be better (you don't have to give 6 but 6 is the max - this doesn't mean you don't have more then 6 but please limit to 6);

A. An item dealing with the Vista shell, limited to 60 words or less.

B. An item dealing with the Vista UI, limited to 60 words or less.

C. An item dealing with the core functionality of Vista, limited to 60 words or less.

D. An item dealing with Vista networking features, limited to 60 words or less.

E. An item dealing with Vista anti-piracy/activation, limited to 60 words or less.

F. An item dealing with Digital Rights Management (DRM), limited to 60 words or less.

THIS IS NOT A RANT THREAD - THIS IS NOT A CRITIC THREAD - SO PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC AND WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE REQUESTED INFORMATION -PLEASE DO NOT BE CRITICAL OF ANOTHERS POST Thank You :)

To start off heres a few of mine;

1. The ability to customize small things like having the ability of making 'Advanced Search' as default view instead of having to click the 'Advanced Search' button each time. A good example of the admin account not having full control is in the registry - key: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows Search\CatalogNames\Windows\SystemIndex] - right click on the key and choose 'Permissions' and you will quickly find that only WSearch and TrustedInstaller have full control and not the admin accout - then try to edit the 'IgnoreShortcuts' value (which would speed up search if it would ignore shortcuts if you have a ton of them).

2. The ability to effectively Admin a system without UAC intervention without having to disable UAC. The Administrator needs to have true un-restricted access to the system.

3. The ability to choose upon install IPv4, IPv6, or both, networking attributes and the ability to choose which one you do or do not want to install while maintaining the capability to install either later after Vista install.

4. Vista Anti-Piracy/activation requirements are too limiting, assumes the user is basically dishonest and has too much control over, and indeed at times may violate a persons legal rights, concerning their property rights over their computer. It could have been done better. Its kind of insulting the way it is now. Anti-Piracy is a MS problem, we shouldn't have to pay for their problem.

5. DRM doesn't take into account a persons legal right to duplicate a music CD for their own home use, or d/l'd music legitimately purchased prior to the birth of DRM.

6. Finally, the Aero Glass theme should have been advertised as 'Aero Translucent Glass'. Its not transparent its translucent - there is a difference. There should be more control for customizing the visual aspects of the Aero Glass theme such as being able to adjust the transparency of the whole window.

Thank You for your participation. :)

Edited by Spooky
Link to comment
Share on other sites


the fact that there is no ipx :(

that there are programs that just dont work with the vista glass theme so it has to revert to another theme...

the desktop properties interface is completely different and a big pain, they should go back to the xp style which is much more effective

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. The ability to effectively Admin a system without UAC intervention without having to disable UAC. The Administrator needs to have true un-restricted access to the system.
Just FYI, the built-in Administrator is the only account who does bypass UAC.

Edit: I attended a week-long course on supporting Vista and have the flow diagram of how UAC is implemented with split tokens, there is an explicit decision for the built-in Administrator's well-known SID to jump straight to the secure desktop without the OTS prompt.

Aynthing that prompts you is not using the Administrator's security token.

By default this account is disabled except in Safe Mode, but can be enabled if you need "unhindered" access to the various tools.

If you need all members of the Administrators group to have this kind of freedom, then launch an Explorer or CMD prompt elevated and run your tools from there, as the split tokens are inherited from the parent process.

(The translucency of windows is controlled by the application I think - try running "perfmon /sys" and then click "Compare" / "Set Transparency" and select one of the predefined options to see an example.)

Edited by Mr Snrub
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, I will not be migrating to Vista for the following reasons:

1) I don't see it as a stable platform. Way to buggy for a RTM release, it's how Microsoft releases software nowadays, Microsoft's RTM should be Beta. It's not stable enough IMO for business use until at least SP1, if not SP2.

2) Besides DX10, and new Aqua GUI, What am I getting above Windows XP? Not anything worth jumping through the activation/WGA crap that treats me like a thief.

3) When I'm ready for something that looks like Vista, why not go with the orginal; Mac OSX?

4) When Vista come back from sleep or hibernate, it loses the network connections sometimes. When it does, you end up having to reboot the machine to get them back.

Edited by Jazkal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"the built-in Administrator is the only account who does bypass UAC."

Hmmm...not exactly...even the admin account has trouble taking full control of some areas, even the admin account receives prompts for install of software some times - this is UAC interaction, it just doesn't look like it.

2. The ability to effectively Admin a system without UAC intervention without having to disable UAC. The Administrator needs to have true un-restricted access to the system.
Just FYI, the built-in Administrator is the only account who does bypass UAC.

By default this account is disabled except in Safe Mode, but can be enabled if you need "unhindered" access to the various tools.

If you need all members of the Administrators group to have this kind of freedom, then launch an Explorer or CMD prompt elevated and run your tools from there, as the split tokens are inherited from the parent process.

(The translucency of windows is controlled by the application I think - try running "perfmon /sys" and then click "Compare" / "Set Transparency" and select one of the predefined options to see an example.)

Edited by Spooky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I don't see it as a stable platform. Way to buggy for a RTM release, it's how Microsoft releases software nowadays, Microsoft's RTM should be Beta. It's not stable enough IMO for business use until at least SP1, if not SP2.

People have said that about every windows release (since Win 95 at least). Yet, millions of users and tons of large places have used the RTMs without a single problem (or very minor issues - often drivers). I don't recall of any major/critical bugs that ever made me wish I had waited for a service pack.

2) Besides DX10, and new Aqua GUI, What am I getting above Windows XP? Not anything worth jumping through the activation/WGA crap that treats me like a thief.

There's hundreds of new features/enhancements/new stuff and what not. Lots of it is VERY significant/real improvements IMO. But then again, it depends where cuts the line as "how much makes it worth it", and for some people, there just couldn't be enough no matter what.

As for the activation & WGA crap, as much as I despise being treated like a thief and an OS vendor installing spyware (at least trying to) on my PCs, it's really not all that different from XP. XP had a mandatory activation for almost everyone - just not corporate customers. Most people pirated that one, hence the recent whining about activation, as there is no bypassing it now. WGA? Yep, XP's got that too. The ONLY real difference is that Vista has to be re-activated every 180 days. If being automatically re-activated twice as year (should be totally transparent) is a reason to not use a far superior OS, you're never going to upgrade past XP (think you'll be running XP in 50 years?)

3) When I'm ready for something that looks like Vista, why not go with the orginal; Mac OSX?

Perhaps because one doesn't want overpriced ghey looking hardware with a crap OS that doesn't run any of the software I need and want? Game selection for that "platform" is reason enough for 99% of home users to never want to buy one. I need a mac like a hole in the head - it's the absolute, very last resort IMO (right before not using computers anymore ever, and even then, I'm almost hesitating).

4) When Vista come back from sleep or hibernate, it loses the network connections sometimes. When it does, you end up having to reboot the machine to get them back.

Sleeping (or hibernation) disconnects the network on any OS. Some OS/hardware/driver combinations have more problems than others. Vista is FAR better than the older versions of windows WRT this. If you're having problems, I wouldn't instantly blame the OS (very well could be drivers). And that shouldn't be a reason to reboot - ever, on any OS. You just have to reinitialize it (manually reconnect).

Seriously, there's a lot of FUD, misinformation (like the "no RAID support" in another thread, like it's not there just because someone doesn't understand it!) and such being said about Vista nowadays. Like the "it's bloated" claims from people that have seemingly forgotten about every previous windows (or ms office) release, where everybody said the exact same things! (bloated/same OS with a new skin - because they can't tell apart from GUI changes since they have no idea of the underlying stuff nor care about it/bothersome activation stuff/etc). Some people try to resist change, they're confused and have to actually learn something, so they all say "this new xyz feature sucks, it was so much better with [version -1]!" just because things are done differently, even if it's improved a lot.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Vista is a perfect OS or anything. UAC is definitely a PITA, but then again there were countless linux folks saying it basically needed this to be secure... Much of it is "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Sometimes you just can't win.

Same with the drivers signing. You have millions of people making the same old tired BSOD jokes. And if you read into their online crash analysis service, you'll see that nearly all crashes (the vast majority) are because of bad drivers. So to reduce crashes (and undeserved perception of a buggy OS), the solution is to reduce usage of crappy drivers, which should help in the long run. But now folks are whining about it (wanting to load drivers that can likely make their machine crash - and them in turn blaming MS for making an unstable OS). Their "solution" is to totally disregard singing and load any old crappy drivers regardless - it's not much of a solution either... So they decided to force ppl to use signed drivers as much as possible (the next best thing after "all drivers being perfect/having no bugs at all" which is impossible), but then ppl complain. Again, you just can't win.

Give it 6 months to a year, and most people will be using the latest version, and those "Vista sucks" people will be very quiet. They'll be used to the new ways do to things, there will be more drivers, it will ship on all new PCs, etc. Eventually, most people wouldn't ever want to switch to anything older (like most people wouldn't want to go back from XP anymore nowadays). But there will always be a small minority who will stick to the older OS'es for a very long time (like those still running 9x nowadays). It's annoying to read all that negative stuff all the time, so I usually try to ignore it altogether. It's only a matter of time before they stop...

Repeat & rince with the next version of windows, and the following, and ... ("it's bloated!", "it does nothing the old OS can't do!", "same OS, just a new skin!", "DRM!", etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.) Totally inconsistent user interface to set software options. For example:

Windows Explorer - Organize > Folder & Search Options

Word Pad - View > Options

Internet Explorer - Tools > Internet Options

Windows Photo Gallery - File > Options

Windows Mail - Tools > Options, or Tools > Accounts, or Tools > Junk Mail Options, or View > Layout

Windows Media Player - Right Click in UNIDENTIFIED area > Tools > Options

It goes on and on. To make matters worse, in Vista, they appear to have randomly moved configuration options around for no apparent reason. Or is there a method to the madness?

2.) MS seems to focus on new features and rarely refines old ones. There's no excuse for the limitations of Notepad, or MSPaint, or the built-in telnet client with no ssh ability at this stage of of game. Make them useful or rip them out. I'd rather they fix these than enhance Media Player. The least they could do is pay off the authors of software like Editpad, scite, and Putty, and include these instead.

3.) Lean & Mean default, not big & bloated default. All bloat should be optional. There should be a core, stripped down OS that installs and does the basics as simply and quickly as possible. A user should be able to add only what they want or need when they want or need it.

4.) Instead of (or along with, at least) a search engine that will find anything on your PC no matter where you put it, (and which will suck up resources indexing everything) it would be better to try and educate your users as to how data is actually stored on a computer... where they should and should not store things. When you cater to the user who has no clue, randomly saves files all over the place, and generally can't find anything on their PC, you do everyone a disservice. Things like adaptive user interfaces which change based on context or users' habits, hiding file extensions, making Documents & Settings a junction point without telling anyone, hiding user data deep within hidden directories with very long unintelligible names, etc.. don't really help my parents use their PC and hinder me from helping them as well. I'd rather they suck it up and learn what a folder is and how to navigate a directory tree. You aren't doing young, potential IT workers any favors here either. Seems to me we'd all be better off if the structure of data at the file system level was as transparent as possible. While there's alot of cool stuff in the new Explorer, the default settings are questionable. Basic navigation has not improved and may even be harder for most people. Stop forcing your particular idea of how things should be organized on us and give us a clearer picture of where things really are. Please....

5.) Favorite Links in Windows Explorer - Why don't links to UNC paths work? If I open a window to say \\server\home\ and drag a directory called 'myhomedir' to Favorite Links, I get a link called 'myhomedir' that does absolutely nothing. A shortcut to a symlink doesn't work as a 'favorite link' either.

6.) Symlinks & Junctions points - I''m very happy Vista has real symlinks now. But I'm very disappointed that Vista presents itself as if they don't exist even though junction points are used to redirect most of the old Documents & Settings tree to the new Users tree (which, btw, is going to confuse the hell out of people...). Don't hide this functionality. Fully integrate this into Explorer (symlinks & Junction points only show up as shortcuts which is misleading... though properties of a symlink will at least show you where it's really pointed). Explain how they work in the help files. And make it clear what & where My Documents really is.

7.) All right... last one and I'll stop. The Windows Key is an abomination and to link it to what's arguably the coolest 'gee wiz' feature (the 3-D window flipping alternative to alt-tab) in Vista is lame. That COMPLETELY unnecessary key should be regarded as a marketing mistake and never used by anything. ;)

Edited by joei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same with the drivers signing.

...

So they decided to force ppl to use signed drivers as much as possible (the next best thing after "all drivers being perfect/having no bugs at all" which is impossible), but then ppl complain. Again, you just can't win.

I would have a smaller problem with this if the "signing process" would involve real testing instead of paying microsoft a bucket of money... Or do you think the software built by big companies is better, just because the companies can pay the signing? Stable, perfectly working software is to be uninstallable just because the authors do not charge money for it and cannot afford paying microsoft.

To Spooky: Sorry for interrupting the thread, but to this I just had to answer, as short as possible.

Unfortunately, I did not have the possibility to test it yet, but if I come across one, I'll post my 2 cents here, too :)

Greetings,

C.RAZY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4.) Instead of (or along with, at least) a search engine that will find anything on your PC no matter where you put it, (and which will suck up resources indexing everything) it would be better to try and educate your users as to how data is actually stored on a computer... where they should and should not store things. When you cater to the user who has no clue, randomly saves files all over the place, and generally can't find anything on their PC, you do everyone a disservice. Things like adaptive user interfaces which change based on context or users' habits, hiding file extensions, making Documents & Settings a junction point without telling anyone, hiding user data deep within hidden directories with very long unintelligible names, etc.. don't really help my parents use their PC and hinder me from helping them as well. I'd rather they suck it up and learn what a folder is and how to navigate a directory tree. You aren't doing young, potential IT workers any favors here either. Seems to me we'd all be better off if the structure of data at the file system level was as transparent as possible. While there's a lot of cool stuff in the new Explorer, the default settings are questionable. Basic navigation has not improved and may even be harder for most people. Stop forcing your particular idea of how things should be organized on us and give us a clearer picture of where things really are. Please....

I have to agree on this, as it is just dumbing down the users, and making the technicians jobs harder. All though, Vista would search a folder created with the customers backup after a reinstall too, so maybe it might of made our jobs easier, lol.

7.) All right... last one and I'll stop. The Windows Key is an abomination and to link it to what's arguably the coolest 'gee wiz' feature (the 3-D window flipping alternative to alt-tab) in Vista is lame. That COMPLETELY unnecessary key should be regarded as a marketing mistake and never used by anything. ;)

I have to totally disagree here. I use the Windows Key all the time, and allows power users to navigate the OS quicker, if you take advantage of it. Just take for instance "Windows Key + E" to open Windows Explorer, or "Windows Key + R" to open the run command, just those two alone used by someone knowledgeable, can navigate to any area of the OS with the keyboard much quicker than using the GUI. If anything, they should extend on it, and add even more shortcut keys, and allow them to be remapped too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crahak, excellent post. Mind if I quote you on my web blog? You've basically made the best statement I've read in ages. Cheers. :thumbup:hello:

Go ahead. No need to quote me or anything, you can use it as yours :lol:

I would have a smaller problem with this if the "signing process" would involve real testing instead of paying microsoft a bucket of money... Or do you think the software built by big companies is better, just because the companies can pay the signing? Stable, perfectly working software is to be uninstallable just because the authors do not charge money for it and cannot afford paying microsoft.

Actually, the small independant writers are more like "collateral damage" if I can say. This isn't aimed at them (not that I'm saying their drivers are typically great stuff either - nor necessarily bad).

This is mostly so people install the WHQL certified ati/nvidia/nforce/intel/whatever video/chipset/soundcard drivers, and not the ghetto stuff. And yes, they actually do testing, even if you find it hard to believe. They try to force you to install the known good drivers by making it inconvenient to install the non-signed ones.

Then there's that small minority of folks with the odd unusual hardware that doesn't have signed drivers (and doesn't have generic drivers or anything like that). It might be more of a PITA to install those now, but I think it's a small price to pay for the vast majority of ppl to use mainly known good drivers (and people stoping to make the old tired unfounded BSOD jokes a few years from now and saying it's an unstable sucky OS because their drivers sucked). I think you're severely underestimating the amount of drivers causing BSODs. There's some information/stories about that on the web, you'd be amazed to see how many such drivers that causes BSODs are found everyday. They just HAD to do something.

Again, one way or another, people will complain.

Keep the same old apps people have been using forever as is (those that some people say are the only things which are "right" - like notepad/paint/calc) and then some whine there's no SSH in telnet and such ;) (Actually, they've redone the calculator and such for XP, paint supports more formats, etc). Yeah, they still suck in a way (well, notepad is very featureless, but very lightweight/barebones - it's OK-ish), but then again, if they added more features like syntax highlighting in notepad, SSH in telnet and such things, then there would be people whining about bundling (just like how it's seemingly a bad thing it comes with a functional [yet so sucky] media player and WM codecs! But that every other OS/distro also does it is seemingly a good thing though - even a BAD thing if they don't. Talk about dual standards!) Ya know, people would all be saying the old "embrace and extend, teh M$ is at it again!", and how they must be trying to kill putty or such (and be accused of using proprietary standards in the way, regardless of any facts)...

As for SSH or syntax highlighting, I'd say 95%+ of windows users don't use it either nor care about it, and those who do already know the apps that have the features they want. Personally, I use SSH like twice a year (truly don't care if telnet doesn't have it), and no matter what they did to notepad, I still wouldn't use it, same for paint). And no matter what changes they did, people would still use another editor ("it's not notepad++/editplus/ultraedit/uestudio/vim/emacs" or whatever it is they really want and have always used). WMP is no exception, no matter what they do to it (just like for notepad or paint), I'd still use ZoomPlayer (and VLC/MPC). Besides, the minute they add a single tiny feature to one of them (that they can notice), tons of people will complain about "bloat" as they always do.

When you're Microsoft, there's NOTHING you can do without having some people complain about it.

Oh, about the inconsistent user interface, I agree on this one. This is perhaps the first complaint I hear about Vista that's seems to be relevant (unlike "there's no boot logo!" or a couple icons - like it actually matters)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'll try to be short as i'm not in the mood of writing novels right now:

1. superfetch sux - great idea, poorly done..

2. inconsistencies, a bit too heavy

3. no tcpip patch, they've messed everybody with their opengl/d3d stuff.. opengl working as an emulation based on 3d or something like that.. ffs..

4. no easy way to share your files over the network, just like in XP

5. it could've been done better.. just like superfetch

6. never had a problem with that..

after all, vista is great except for these shortcomings..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the small independant writers are more like "collateral damage" if I can say. This isn't aimed at them (not that I'm saying their drivers are typically great stuff either - nor necessarily bad).

This is mostly so people install the WHQL certified ati/nvidia/nforce/intel/whatever video/chipset/soundcard drivers, and not the ghetto stuff. And yes, they actually do testing, even if you find it hard to believe. They try to force you to install the known good drivers by making it inconvenient to install the non-signed ones.

Then there's that small minority of folks with the odd unusual hardware that doesn't have signed drivers (and doesn't have generic drivers or anything like that). It might be more of a PITA to install those now, but I think it's a small price to pay for the vast majority of ppl to use mainly known good drivers (and people stoping to make the old tired unfounded BSOD jokes a few years from now and saying it's an unstable sucky OS because their drivers sucked). I think you're severely underestimating the amount of drivers causing BSODs. There's some information/stories about that on the web, you'd be amazed to see how many such drivers that causes BSODs are found everyday. They just HAD to do something.

Again, one way or another, people will complain.

...

When you're Microsoft, there's NOTHING you can do without having some people complain about it.

It is good to see you have an understanding at least, crahak :)

Just to expand on the driver signing issue:

- it is only enforced for 64-bit Windows

- it is a protection system to prevent unauthorised kernel mode code which includes modifications to existing drivers

- audio drivers use UMDF now, so are not kernel-mode

- the signing is done with the vendor's own PIC, not a "Microsoft stamp"

- it is disabled if a debugger attached, so developing drivers is not a problem

- in corporate environments you can disable driver signing, or create a CA to sign the drivers yourself for distribution

- it is not only for stability through "certified" drivers, but for security to help protect against rootkit-type attacks

Also, Windows Vista was the product of a massive amount of user feedback during beta testing, its design radically altered in response to comments and demands, so while it's not possible to create something that at least a few people won't complain about, a "best effort" can be made while still making advances in security, stability and features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...