What’s wrong with Vista and what’s not

[8 Comment(s)]

By Philip DiStefano

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, you’ve probably heard from some media outlet or someone you know that Microsoft’s Windows Vista operating system is not such a good upgrade. There’s been a lot said of Vista that isn’t true, and there’s been a lot said that is.

Starting off with what isn’t true, Windows Vista most definitely does not suck. It’s not just Windows XP with a shiny interface, as most of the major changes were under the hood – that is, they were made to the kernel, the core of the operating system.

Just like Microsoft did with Windows 2000 when preparing for Windows XP, Windows Vista is a large preparatory step towards Windows 7, the codename for the next version of the operating system. The major difference is that Windows 2000 was targeted to professional customers rather than to home consumers, so not that many people realize how similar the situation is, as they’ve never used Windows 2000 and instead probably used Windows 98 or ME at the time.

Another issue people have had is with User Account Control – the consent dialog that pops up asking the user to select Cancel or Allow when the user tries to perform a task that is considered administrative. A lot of people may tell you that it sucks, but what it boils right down to is results: User Account Control works. Recent tests have shown that it does prevent software with malicious intentions from being installed.

So what is true? Well, if anyone has told you that Vista is unnecessarily more complicated, I’d have to say that they’re correct. In certain areas, such as the networking control panel and the desktop properties, Microsoft has added seemingly useless menus that add one or two more steps between me and what I could’ve gotten to in XP with less clicks and less hassle.

You may have also heard that Vista is evolutionary rather than revolutionary, and that is most definitely true. Many of the features in Vista – from the shininess and transparency of the graphical user interface to the gadgets to the Instant Search – have already been around in other operating systems and other programs for years now. Vista really doesn’t bring anything new to the table for experienced users or even inexperienced consumers, in some cases.

However, that doesn’t stop Vista from being a great operating system. No matter what random bloggers might be saying, Vista is beating XP in lot of ways. Microsoft blogger Austin Wilson reported that Vista had fewer vulnerabilities in its first year after release than XP did.

Something else that a lot of consumers don’t understand is that Microsoft is not really responsible for all of the compatibility issues people experience. It should be expected that when applications are written for Windows XP, those same applications might not work 100 percent correctly when running on an operating system that had its core completely overhauled.

Microsoft has even kept the Windows registry around, even though so many people agree that it is horrible, for reasons which I likely suspect revolve around backwards compatibility. Such compatibility is more the application developers’ responsibility.

The case is very similar when it comes to crashes. Have you gotten a “blue screen of death” on Windows Vista lately? It’s not necessarily Microsoft’s fault. Many such crashes and instabilities have to do with third-party hardware drivers – software that tells your operating system all about a specific piece of hardware, such as a sound card, so that it can work properly. With that said, driver support for Vista hasn’t exactly been top-notch.

So remember, don’t be so quick to believe what other people tell you, including what Microsoft may tell you, until you try Vista out for yourself. It’s neat, but it has its faults, just like anything else people create. If you’re interested in installing Windows Vista, don’t forget that LSU offers it free of charge on TigerWare.

Originally Published: Issue 702 - August 27, 2008

Share on Facebook

Back to the top