Vista is getting better ... slowly

Vista is getting better ... slowly

Summary: While there can be no doubt that Vista RTM was buggy and caused some early adopters a lot of headaches, things are now getting better ... slowly.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Software, Microsoft
253

A lot has been written about how Microsoft released Windows Vista too early and with too many bugs to make is a feasible platform for people looking for a relatively hassle-free platform.  If you liked being at the cutting edge then I'm sure you'd be happy to live with the bugs, but if happened to be looking a stable work platform, the general opinion was that it was best to stick with XP for a while.  Now though, things are changing.  Vista is getting better ... slowly.

Vista is getting better ... slowlyOver the past few weeks we've not only seen a beta for the long awaited SP1 fall into the hands of a small pool of beta testers (of which I'm one), we've also seen a fair few compatibility, performance and reliability releases, specifically KB938979, KB938194 and KB941649

I've installed all these updates onto several systems in the lab and what I'm noticing is that while KB938979 and KB938194 resulted in very litter overall benefit (the main benefit came from KB938979 and the fix to the "estimated time remaining" when copying or moving large files bug, but this was more of an annoyance rather than a critical problem), I'm seeing considerable improvement to both performance and reliability after installing SP1 and KB941649 on all systems.  In particular, Vista startup times are improved considerably and overall reliability is infinitely better.  What's even better is that there's no sign on a downside to applying these patches.

Several cynics have commented on the timing of these releases and wonder if they have anything to do with the imminent release of Mac OS X Leopard.  While it's easy to entertain such theories, I don't put too much stock in them.  It takes time to identify and fix issues, especially within a complex OS such as Vista.  We're not yet at the year mark since Vista went RTM so it's still early days.  Should Microsoft have been faster and more aggressive in releasing patches is a point worth debating, but that's history now, what matters is that we're starting to see real progress being done in bringing Vista up to scratch.  Some areas are still waiting to be fixed (for example, I can easily replicate the network transfer speed bug on a fully patched SP1 beta version of Vista), I'm pleased with the progress I'm seeing.

While I've been highly critical of Vista as it was when it went RTM back in November of 2006, With the bundle of patches already released and Vista SP1 now on the horizon, I'm starting to see light at the end of the dark tunnel that I've been in for the past eleven months ... and I'm hopeful that it's not a train coming in the opposite direction!

Thoughts?

Topics: Software, Microsoft

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

253 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • I hope so

    I have been wondering why the slow startup and shutdown issues were not resolved before RTM.... oh well. The other odd issue is that our new printer from time to time is not recognized by the PC at all... after a reboot it recognizes this and automatically reinstalls the drivers.... very, very odd...
    redtrain65
  • RE: Vista is getting better ... slowly

    Sir, do you know if there are any fixes for Vista Movie Maker and DVD Maker? I have never been able to use the product....thanks.
    mmcdaniel@...
  • Some day it will take mainstream

    I am still fighting the good fight here at home, but some day Windows Vista will take over the desktop.
    nucrash
    • like windows me did?

      except it didn't. When you see a lemon, it stays being a lemon.
      stevey_d
    • you sir must

      be a fool to think it will be mainstream!! Period..
      gdude@...
  • RE: Vista is getting better ... slowly

    Yeah, but who cares?
    Henrik Moller
    • I do not know?

      90 percent of the market, I would safely wager.
      GuidingLight
  • Really?

    90% using Windows does not translate to 90% wanting to upgrade Windows.

    In fact, Microsoft has actually struggled the past few years getting people to adopt their OS. XP took something like 5 years to get to the 50% mark vs. Win2K. What this tells me is that businesses (90% of that 90%) moved to XP when they upgraded their hardware and so had no choice. I expect an even longer curve for Vista.
    frgough
    • 7.38% of the entire market ....

      ... are already using Vista. that makes the number of Vista users greater then all Mac users or linux users. It also makes it the number two OS behind Windows XP. Like it or not Vista will take over.
      ShadeTree
      • Damn, I need to load more Linux

        I forget these things.

        Don't feel bad, OpenSUSE made it onto one of my work computers.

        I also had to dump a Dual Xeon box because Windows 64 wasn't supported, so I had to purchase SUSE Desktop. Hope you don't mind I try and skew those numbers just a bit more.
        nucrash
        • You can't possibly make a difference.

          Even if all you do is load Linux all day everyday. Linux has less then 1% share and is basically flat in terms of growth.
          ShadeTree
          • Huh?

            Were do you get 1%? It's more like 3-6% depending on what statistics you use. There are an estimated 30-40 million Linux desktop users worldwide. At a billion desktop units that's about 3-4%.

            At 1% there would be [b]3 Billion PC's[/b] on this planet. Of course Michael Dell could have waved his magic wand and ramped up production, maybe? ;)
            MisterMiester
          • Serious question - how do we get that user number figure?

            How many of those are native desktops? I run Linux, but virtualized and/or dual boot. Though you could say the same thing about Windows I suppose, but barring pirate copies (of which mine is not one) you can at least get a more concrete number from the number of licenses sold.

            With Linux being downloads, usually of ISOs, it's more difficult. Does a download necessarily mean an install? Does it mean multiple? In what environment. Linux is still, for many people, myself included, a hobbyist OS, and therefore we supplement our main OS with it. At the moment I virtualize it under Vista Ultimate. In the past I have dual booted with XP, and before that with Win2K.
            Ben_E
          • Try this

            http://marketshare.hitslink.com/
            itpro_z
          • I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

            Here is the link backing my claim. Where is yours?

            http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2
            ShadeTree
          • Look at that, mine is much BIGGER!!!

            [i]Here is the link backing my claim. Where is yours?[/i]

            Right here:

            OS Platform Statistics

            2007 WinXP W2000 Win98 Vista W2003 Linux Mac
            July 74.6% 6.0% 0.9% 3.6% 2.0% [b]3.4%[/b] 4.0%

            http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

            Mark Shuttleworth last year in Red Herring Magazine said Ubuntu has at least 8 million users based on unique IP addresses:

            http://www.redherring.com/Home/20497

            If you have one billion PC's worldwide then 0.81% market share is a little over 8 million users. So what is everyone using Ubuntu and nothing else? What about Fedora, Suse, Debian, Mandriva, PCLinuxOS, or any of the other top 10 distros?

            I'm sorry but your silly little "number" isn't impressing anyone at the moment. Thank you for playing, please try again. :)
            MisterMiester
          • Flat? Here's some FLAT for you...

            http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=msft&sid=0&o_symb=msft&freq=2&time=13
            TechExec2
          • Try again

            MSFT past is brought up here constantly. Let's see the MSFT chart since it went public. Then let's compare it to APPL.
            xuniL_z
          • Here ya go!

            .
            Some advice:

            1. THINK before you post a challenge. :^0

            2. Living in the past (i.e. pre-1998) does not help MSFT in the present.

            3. Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.



            Good chart, up until 1998:
            http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=msft&sid=0&o_symb=msft&freq=2&time=20

            Much better chart:
            http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=aapl&sid=0&o_symb=aapl&freq=2&time=20



            P.S. I don't give MSFT any credit for the "irrational exuberance" stock spike of 1999. If I did, I would have to say that [u]MSFT has lost half it's value[/u]. :0 I want to be fair. ;-)
            TechExec2
          • We were not talking ....

            ... stock prices. Thanks for playing though. Come back and play again when you have something on topic.
            ShadeTree