CNet rates Vista one of "worst products in history"

[bangbang023 Veteran]

What usability issues have you encountered with Vista? Besides always forgetting where the network settings were moved, I've not noticed anything.

[PricklyPoo]

Well there are a lot of things bad with Vista but they things they stated arent.

Such as

incompatibility with hardware

What the hell was Microsoft supposed to do? Recode every driver themselves? All they could do is wait for companies do update the software themselves.

abusive use of hated DRM

If you actually pay for the software it isn't a problem.

downgrade-to- previous-edition

This is because the software is ahead of it's time and the only reason it runs slower is because it has more processes and features. If you installed windows 95 on your computer it would run faster than xp does too.

And what kind of people do the reviews on cnet anyway? It always seems like the stuff they rate good is rated bad on other websites and vice-versa

[Hurmoth]

What usability issues have you encountered with Vista? Besides always forgetting where the network settings were moved, I've not noticed anything.

Well you're lucky, but I get constant crashes from even a fresh install. The UI is slow and sluggish feeling. It takes forever to boot.

Before people start saying it is my hardware, I've tried this on multiple systems that are running newer hardware designed for Vista (Intel Core 2 Duo, AMD Athlon 6000+).

UAC is the most annoying "feature" built into any OS ever. I can't think of anything else. Obviously you can turn it off, but that isn't the point here.

[bolix]

If this is one of the worst products in history then I must be the worst product consumer ever because I really like this.

[PricklyPoo]

If this is one of the worst products in history then I must be the worst product consumer ever because I really like this.

Lol next thing you know cnet will make a worst consumers ever review and you will be in it. :laugh:

[devHead]

Any operating system that takes six years of development but is instantly hated by hordes of PC professionals and enthusiasts deserves to be classed as terrible technology.

If those idiots at CNet did any research at all, they would know that Vista did not take 6 years to develop; Microsoft restarted the whole thing like in 2004/5.

And hardware incompatibility? Vista recognized and installed drivers for everything I have on this machine. Vista had out of the box thousands more drivers than XP did when it was released.

What a bunch of morons.

[devHead]

Well you're lucky, but I get constant crashes from even a fresh install. The UI is slow and sluggish feeling. It takes forever to boot.

Before people start saying it is my hardware, I've tried this on multiple systems that are running newer hardware designed for Vista (Intel Core 2 Duo, AMD Athlon 6000+).

UAC is the most annoying "feature" built into any OS ever. I can't think of anything else. Obviously you can turn it off, but that isn't the point here.

Constant crashes? From a fresh install? How constant? Once a day, or more frequently? I'm sorry, but if you have 'constant' crashes on your system from a 'fresh install' it might be a physical hardware problem. Don't bash your OS because of that. As far as the slow and sluggish feeling on an Intel Core 2 Duo or Athlon 6000+, I find that a little hard to believe. I'm running Vista x64 on an Athlon 3000+ and it doesn't feel sluggish at all.

Plus, you can disable some GUI candy to speed up performance (without even disabling Aero).

It takes forever to boot? How long exactly? More than a minute? How much other software are you running on the computers? I've found Vista boots as fast or faster than XP. Yes, XP is more responsive when it's up and running, but the boot time isn't.

I agree, UAC is an annoyance, but Microsoft weren't the ones who started the concept. I've had it in Linux distros for years, although not quite as intrusive as in Vista. Besides, Microsoft basically did it for a more secure system. If you can disable it (like I have) without putting your system at risk, do it. But I think it's smart to have it enabled for most users who do very stupid things with their computer and end up getting malware and viruses and all kinds of other junk on their systems.

[BlueFiberOptics]

But I think it's smart to have it enabled for most users who do very stupid things with their computer and end up getting malware and viruses and all kinds of other junk on their systems.

A dialog box is going to stop users from malware? I could see some people that actually read the warnings before clicking OK, but there are countless people in the world that will just click OK/ALLOW to continue.

I'm all for these security dialogs, don't get me wrong. But the people I'm thinking of will just click ALLOW/OK for everything.

[ANova]

What a human wasteland.

[Doli]

But the people I'm thinking of will just click ALLOW/OK for everything.

Yea if its a program they want to run i can see them clicking OK. If a windows just pops up and they didnt even click on a program I can see people reading what program is trying to execute or they will click the X in the top corner just to close the pop-up and the program wont run.

[devHead]

A dialog box is going to stop users from malware? I could see some people that actually read the warnings before clicking OK, but there are countless people in the world that will just click OK/ALLOW to continue.

I'm all for these security dialogs, don't get me wrong. But the people I'm thinking of will just click ALLOW/OK for everything.

Well, you're probably right. A friend of mine who works in IT told me that there are some people who, if they received an email with an attachment that said 'This is a virus - click it' would do so. You cannot save some people from their own stupidity. But you can make them at least try for a brief moment to make them think about the consequences of their actions. I think that's what Microsoft had in mind with UAC.

[MulletRobZ]

Even though I have been a big fan of Mac OS X for a couple of years now, I must blatantly disagree with CNet's claim of Vista being the worst product in history. While it does have its issues such as UAC, hefty system requirements, and incompatibility issues; Vista does not even come close to matching the frustration caused by Windows ME (I tried it and it eventually rendered my computer useless after a few months) and by that WGA scam that started around 2004 (or was it 2005?).

[DrunkenMaster]

If those idiots at CNet did any research at all, they would know that Vista did not take 6 years to develop; Microsoft restarted the whole thing like in 2004/5.

How does "restarting" the whole project not count towards the time frame to develop? I don't think this argument over semantics. Projects have a start date and no matter what happens to the progress this is when the project started.

As I noted in my earlier comment, Vista scored a 7 and XP an 8 on CNet's review site for the initial review of the product. So either XP is so bad a product that it should be behind Vista as among the worst products (which it is not), or CNet has not been honest with its reviews to customers. Afterall, if the product is so bad, why give it a mediocre review on release and then almost a year later warn its readers its one of the worst products? This after a thorough review?

[Linkinfamous]

Well, you're probably right. A friend of mine who works in IT told me that there are some people who, if they received an email with an attachment that said 'This is a virus - click it' would do so. You cannot save some people from their own stupidity. But you can make them at least try for a brief moment to make them think about the consequences of their actions. I think that's what Microsoft had in mind with UAC.

What Microsoft had in mind with UAC is making it so that code couldn't just run as an Administrator by itself. Nothing more.

[LCA]

For all the people who trumpet XP over Vista, well I went googling on reviews of XP from 2001 and also on security issues in 2001.

Expert says XP will make internet unstable

In fact the moaning about the security in XP in 2001 was deafening. Then try reading the reviews from the many websites that moaned that XP wasn't all that quick compared to the DOS based versions of Windows in some apps. DOS well what about all the people moaning their DOS software wouldn't work. Finally read all the whining about compatibility issues with hardware in XP.

All this crap about Vista I've heard it all before.

[TC17]

If those idiots at CNet did any research at all, they would know that Vista did not take 6 years to develop; Microsoft restarted the whole thing like in 2004/5.

And hardware incompatibility? Vista recognized and installed drivers for everything I have on this machine. Vista had out of the box thousands more drivers than XP did when it was released.

What a bunch of morons.

I agree. One thing I've noticed anymore when reading ANY of Cnets hardware reviews, is that their biased opinions are almost totally opposite of the user opinions for every single piece of hardware they review.

Obviously the guy/lady writing it is yet another one of those anti-microsoft or anti-Vista people who do nothing but whine about Vista. I use Vista and like it very much. What makes me so angry are all the lies that are being spread about Vista. Just plain blatant outright lies.

[Brian M. Veteran]

This seems to happen with every major OS release from Microsoft.

I for one absolutely hated XP when it was first released, because of the "bloat" and additional "eye candy" that it come with. In the end, however, once the negative and "oh my god, it requires 64mb of ram?!?" had died down, everybody accepted it.

Vista doesn't run THAT greatly on current computers, but neither did XP when it was first released (average system back then was a pentium 4 1.5Ghz with at a maximum 256mb of RAM). Vista will be the same once it has matured and been fully accepted. People just don't like change.

I also don't find the system requirements that high to be honest. XP's recommended RAM was "128mb", when most systems had about 256, these days, Vista's recommended is 1GB, when anything but the extremely budget machines have 2GB. Laptops are an exception, however, but this was the same with XP.

[BajiRav]

This seems to happen with every major OS release from Microsoft.

I for one absolutely hated XP when it was first released, because of the "bloat" and additional "eye candy" that it come with. In the end, however, once the negative and "oh my god, it requires 64mb of ram?!?" had died down, everybody accepted it.

Vista doesn't run THAT greatly on current computers, but neither did XP when it was first released (average system back then was a pentium 4 1.5Ghz with at a maximum 256mb of RAM). Vista will be the same once it has matured and been fully accepted. People just don't like change.

I also don't find the system requirements that high to be honest. XP's recommended RAM was "128mb", when most systems had about 256, these days, Vista's recommended is 1GB, when anything but the extremely budget machines have 2GB. Laptops are an exception, however, but this was the same with XP.

I don't get it. Other contemporary OS options OS X and Ubuntu , they have similar hardware requirements. OS X with integrated graphics will be "sluggish" on 1GB or lower RAM. Ubuntu is probably the same (haven't used it long enough to be honest). I don't get it why people pick on Vista so much.

[S7R1K3R]

Maybe MS pulled out of a huge ad contract and this is CNET's way to get back at them. Kinda like the whole Gamespot fiasco that is going on right now.

[Joey992]

I'm using Vista and haven't had any problems that a quick search on the internet couldn't fix. Most of the people I've talked to who have converted back to XP have done so after about a week or two of experimentation with Vista. I really don't think that is enough time. All in all I like it and will continue to use it.

[ozgeek]

Jeez. When will people stop bashing a well designed and highly awaited OS. XP recieved excatly the same treatment from the industry but look at now. It's fully accepted as a mainstream OS. History will repeat itself that Vista is under the same treatment as XP was and will be accepted into the industry in general time. Many people are just looking for something to bash.

I accept any new technologies introduced. When Vista was released to the general public, I've found an oppontity to pick up a copy. Since February 2007, I am still using the excat same installation. I have never even formatted my main drive. Windows Update shows update installed on 9 February 2007. This and the fact I don't have any security software installed as I felt that the bundled security features was more than adequate to protect me. The only disabled feature is UAC. Common sense is my other weapon in fighting for my system's health.

I did experience BSOD's on Vista but remember BSODs are generally hardware-related problems rather than software. In my cases they was just overheating issues. In the event of a driver fail, Vista can recover it and I am back in business instead of BSODing on me. This occured twice on me when I played Half Life 2. Hardware recongisation and installation is a breeze. It recongisex everything I own, even my MS sidewinder racing wheel/panel set from 2000. Vista runs perfect on my system: http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/jnrobo/mypc.htm.

So cut Vista some slack will ya!

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Jeez. When will people stop bashing a well designed and highly awaited OS. XP recieved excatly the same treatment from the industry but look at now. It's fully accepted as a mainstream OS. History will repeat itself that Vista is under the same treatment as XP was and will be accepted into the industry in general time. Many people are just looking for something to bash.

I accept any new technologies introduced. When Vista was released to the general public, I've found an oppontity to pick up a copy. Since February 2007, I am still using the excat same installation. I have never even formatted my main drive. Windows Update shows update installed on 9 February 2007. The only installations I've done was a windows xp and ubunto into virtual machines on this installation of Vista. Vista does have it's problems but Vista have powerful "insinits" that can repair itself, can log it's doings, etc.

I did experience BSOD's on Vista but remember BSODs are generally hardware-related problems rather than software. In my cases they was just overheating issues. In the event of a driver fail, Vista can recover it and I am back in business instead of BSODing on me. This occured twice on me when I played Half Life 2. Hardware recongisation and installation is a breeze. It recongisex everything I own, even my MS sidewinder racing wheel/panel set from 2000. Vista runs perfect on my system: http://mywebsite.bigpond.com/jnrobo/mypc.htm.

So cut Vista some slack will ya!

That's the reality for me on all the machines I run vista on as well and I'm very happy with it...

Like you said, people are looking for something to bash. Microsoft is the industry punching bag because of their size and since there hasn't been another Windows release besides Vista since 2001 they haven't had anything from Microsoft to bash for headlines... Vista is their little stocking stuffer this and last Christmas...

Judging by the Gamespot (a C|Net Subsidiary) story just recently aired here on Neowin... Maybe this is a sign that MS didn't give any advertising dollars to C|Net :p

[Novaoblivion]

I think a lot of the problems people experience with Vista are simply because their computers are to old/slow to really run it. I found that it made my computer slow than I would like so I went back to XP, but next time I upgrade my system I am going to give it another try.