Vista IE7 issue remains unsolved for many users

Vista IE7 issue remains unsolved for many users

Summary: When I read stuff like this, it confirms my belief that there's something very broken in the world of Vista. Here's a very knowledgeable user and talented developer who's confounded and befuddled by a well-documented and still unaddressed issue affecting Vista users running Internet Explorer 7. The problem manifests itself as an annoying and increasingly frequent hang or time-out during which the PC is essentially rendered useless. This is not a productivity enhancing experience folks. This is a huge time sink.

TOPICS: Windows, Microsoft

When I read stuff like this, it confirms my belief that there's something very broken in the world of Vista. Here's a very knowledgeable user and talented developer who's confounded and befuddled by a well-documented and still unaddressed issue affecting Vista users running Internet Explorer 7. The problem manifests itself as an annoying and increasingly frequent hang or time-out during which the PC is essentially rendered useless. This is not a productivity enhancing experience folks. This is a huge time sink. The emphasis below is mine.

I updated some of the drivers on the Toshiba the other day so maybe that's what's going on. I know there's a specific order these drivers need to be installed in or else "things can go wrong." What those things are I don't know. Maybe that's the problem I'm running into. The only cure I understand is to do a clean install and there's no way I'm going to set aside a dozen hours to reinstall everything and get this machine back in order. I'd rather limp along until I find another Tablet PC. Right now I have my eye on a Lenovo with dual digitizers and the forthcoming Dell Tablet PC.

Sorry in advance if this doesn't align with your experience and you're a huge fan of Vista for whom everything is working just fine. IMO, this is yet another indication of how far Microsoft has to go to get Vista to a position of equivalent performance and stability to what we've come to expect to from XP SP2. Again, this is not an isolated incident or a case of PEBKAC*. Problems like this are all too common and are being widely reported and discussed in the tubes. Do a search and you'll see what I mean. It's increasingly evident that Vista is not a ready-for-prime-time operating system yet.

* A lovely acronym favored by tech support people which stands for Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair.

Update: my buddy Ed Bott takes me to task for using weak evidence and he's right that a lot of hits on a search engine from a query like the one I suggest is hardly conclusive. And, as I commented on his post, there are really two issues here. One is an IE7 problem that further investigation reveals is affecting users of XP and Vista. The other is the larger issue of whether Vista is ready to be a shipping product for the millions of people who were led to believe that their late-model PC was Vista-compatible or Vista-ready and have since discovered that this is not the case. If, as Ed argues in his post, the best scenario is Vista installed on a new PC at the factory and upgrades even on Vista-compatible or Vista-ready machines are a problem waiting to happen, then Microsoft needs to come clean and say so.

Topics: Windows, Microsoft

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


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • And that's a GOOD thing

    [i]This is a huge time sink.[/i]

    Mission accomplished. People who invest that much in MSWinVista will be strongly motivated to recover their investment, which means promoting it wherever possible.

    That's also time not spent on undesirable activities, such as developing for anything [b]but[/b] MSWinVista/MSIE7.
    Yagotta B. Kidding
    • Conspiracy or manopoly

      ms self defecation should say something. like
      you really have no choice, you have to work to live
      or live in the street.

      ms knows your fear and wants your money at your expense
      and you willing pay it.

      so whats the problem, your using a computer now to read
      this arrest you. so why don't you upgrade to read it better.
      not of this world
      • me no fear..

        "so why don't you upgrade to read it better." - get linux, 10 times faster and better....

        or even MAC, 10 times less likely to crash...
    • More Bloat from the Bolatfarm

      If MSFT were to begin to attempt to see the situation from the user standpoint instead of from the shareholder standpoint, everyone would be better off.

      The problem comes when codewriters are compensated on the basis of producing still further "cool features" that add nothing to the user experience and merely complicate things.

      The result is still further choices embedded within a structure that is ludicrously and vastly too complex and that no one wants.

      The MSFT Bloatfarm still thinks more is better when better (simpler, easier, faster) is better.

      hat a pity so much effort is wasted in the Redmond Bloatfarm what a pity that MSFT has such egregiously stupid management.
      Jeremy W
  • XP has had 6 years of improvement. Vista about 6 months.

    Thus a statement such as:

    "IMO, this is yet another indication of how far Microsoft has to go to get Vista to a
    position of equivalent performance and stability to what we?ve come to expect to
    from XP SP2."

    Is kind of foolish don't you think?
    • Alpha testers wanted for Vista

      What is foolish is for Microsoft to spring an OS on us that was not ready for release. I am tired of paying $400 for an OS that's still in alpha.

      Mr. Orchant is correct. The more we see of Vista, the more apparent it becomes that "there's something wrong in the world of Vista." It is astonishing that five and a half years and $4 billion produced nothing more than the current turkey we call Vista. And now Microsoft can't even seem to get out a lowly service pack.

      Methinks there isn't just something wrong with Vista - there's something very wrong with Microsoft.
    • hey..6 yrs+6 months..

      MS has spent 6 yrs..they havnt spent the'v gained 6 yrs of giv them additional 6 yrs..its TRIAL n ERROR..
    • You have a good point

      When MSWinVista has a few more years of development behind it, people should start considering adopting it.
      Yagotta B. Kidding
    • I don't remember XP sucking this bad

      If memory serves XP was a lot smoother at the roll out. There were a few incompatibility issues, the usual number of driver problems but nothing like this.

      There was a certain inevitability about individuals and companies moving to XP. But they're digging in their heels when it comes to Vista migration.

      I know it's hard for some of you to accept, but the tide changes on everyone at some point.
    • Vista shouldn't need years of SP's to get where XP is

      To say that Vista needs years to get where XP SP2 is ridiculous! Vista should have been built with all of the knowledge of XP and be years ahead of XP SP2 at the starting gate.
      • associate EXEs with Notepad?

        Vista pre-SP1 is about where XP was at this time. Once SP2 came out, XP started to run a bit better (although not for everyone and also IF you could get it to install without some issue).

        Vista's only been out for about a year, right? I recall XP being a bit more stable (although not exactly perfect either). At least you don't have the bug in Vista where you can associate EXEs to a different program like the original build of XP had (I did that once when selecting the wrong file..... a system restore wouldn't even fix that one).

      • When is an "upgrade" a "downgrade"?

        Answer: when the experience, stability, features and expectations developed from the earlier version are not at least present in the new version. To say that it is acceptable for Vista to have problems because it is new is like saying that it is acceptable for a car manufacturer who has had a recall to ship out next year's model with last year's problems, and to expect the same issue to result in another recall of the new model.

        I can easily accept that some new problems will crop up in a new product with major changes, but it is unreasonable for there to be a whole slew of them. From what I'm seeing of Vista in my own use, I'm more than ready to offload Vista to a backup, reinstall XP, and wait until Vista SP2, SP3, SP4 or whatever version is stable comes along.
        • When is an "upgrade" a "downgrade"?

          Hear, hear!!
    • Not at all

      Given the incredibly long and protracted development cycle Vista went through prior to release, as well as the unprecedented number of beta testers who banged on it, I don't think so at all. I expected better of the initial release and am disappointed that after 5+ years of development, an additional year of testing, and now 6 months in the wild we're still seeing the number of foundational issues like this cropping up.
    • Yes and No, it was MS who said it had WOW

      XP has had a lot of years to evolve and become a preferred OS but Vista was a rush to market OS with more flaws than Carter has liver pills, agree or not, the patches speak volumes and need no help from me. One reviewer has mentioned that his Vista Business OS has been flawless but failed to mention any details as to what hardware, software, configuration, drivers or much of anything. I have to say, Vista should run well if it's installed on a PC that has everything configured. The problems start when you start installing any software, drivers, upgrades or changing anything from the way it was when you got it. If you believe it isn't stable or that we should expect performance or stability as you have implied, why would anyone buy it ? Kind of foolish don't you think ?
    • Considering the extended dev-cycle...

      Not really. Vista has been through one of the longest development cycles in computing history; it was started nearly six years before it was released, and it was still not ready when they did. That's why (to reduce my stress levels) I will not permit my mother to install the copy of Vista she got through the Upgrade Program until I confirm that the SP1 rollup actually does solve some of the most serious problems.

      In my case, I've a weird, very persistent problem: Total shutdown (even with nothing except the OS running!) takes up to 22 minutes. I've tried to figure out what the heck is going on, but no dice.

      I don't use IE7 directly unless some benighted program launches it instead of my default browser (and there are dozens of such stupid programs, including AIM and Yahoo Messenger!). So I can't comment directly on the IE7/Vista issues from direct experience.
      Raymond Danner
      • The only other longest would be.....

        linux....approx 15 years to a semi-stable OS with any kind of a feature set and programs available and Mac OS which hasn't been considered an OS of much integrity until at least 15 years after it's launch. It took a change of platform to make it useful, let's hope Vista doesn't follow these paths.
  • Many more Vista and MS woes.

    Hey, I like Windows in general and think highly of XP (SP2) but I have to agree that Vista has some very large and time consuming issues.

    I have my "main" PC set up with a dual boot partition, the major being XP and the minor being Vista. Honestly, at this point I use XP to get any real work done and only boot to Vista when I need to test code against it. Why?

    Vista is slow. Hey there is no pretty way to say it. On the same exact machine (a dual core 3.2 Ghz machine, with 4 gig of RAM, and a maxed out ATI 1300 video card.) Vista is slower than XP. It is slower to boot, apps open slower, and very often if I have too many windows open at the same time the thing feels like it went to sleep.

    On top of that I have had no end of problems installing things and getting them to work properly. A recent example is that I followed the MS recommendation to update my video drivers. Cool, took 3 minutes to download them from ATI, another 5 to install it and reboot, and then a half hour re-tweaking all my monitor settings. I run dual monitors and with Vista it seems to be a constant problem. (Works perfectly in XP.)

    From a developers stand point Vista has been a nightmare. I just ran into a issue with a customer trying to install our product and simply could not get it to work. I checked all the usual culprits and could find no reason for it. Finally I looked at Microsoft OneCare and sure enought there was the issue. The user claims they didn't turn off the warnings but somehow OneCare was blocking the install from the internet (using Winsock) but did not give any indication that it was doing it. From the users perspective my install package had failed and it took awhile to convince them that was not the case.

    We also put our code on customer machines where there are multiple users. You may not know it, but there is no way to install it for "all users". Each user had to install it, then we had to register it for each user. Productive? Not even...

    For reasons I can not fathom, I set my folder preferences the way I like them and to speed up my work. Reboot the machine and 50% of the time all my settings are gone and its back to the defaults. More time wasted setting them up again.

    In an attempt to make virus installs harder, Microsft has made it a nightmare to build code for Vista. I am not alone in this and most coders tell me, "I can crank out a small app or add-in in one or two days and then spend a week with installation and deployment issues." Microsoft is VERY aware of this and has been promicing to fix it since Visual Studios 2005 SP1 was released and now the story is, wait for Visual Studios 2008. Well, I've been working with the beta and its still a nightmare.

    From all I can see (both as a user and in my dealing with MS) Jim Alchin did everything he could to tell management that Vista was not ready. (Or really Longhorn rewind.) Instead of listening to the man that was in charge of the best releases of Windows (2000 and XP) he was ignored and then replaced with Steve Styvinski (SP?) and his attitude was it goes out on schedule regardless of it being ready or not. (He has done this a number of times with Office.)

    Honestly, I think Microsoft mucked about with Longhorn, it took far longer than anticipated, upper management said "We can't go this long between major releases" and the decision was made to set aside all the work and build off the old 2000/XP core and glue a new GUI on it and make some security changes that do more harm than good, toss in a new version of DirectX that requires a complete re-write of drivers, release 4 major version changes of .NET, and then pushed it out, ready or not. (.NET 3 is already dead and MS is pushing everyone to 3.5)

    Honestly, I have not seen these many issues since Windows ME. And for the record, I think the Aero (eye candy) is pretty much useless and after using it for awhile found it to be tiring on the eyes. It is now turned off and I see nothing to suggest it should ever be turned back on.
    • good reading

      but why a x1300 almost all other ATI card can beat it.
      not of this world
      • Yes, good stuff

        It's not a gaming machine, the x1300 is everything you need for a dev/business machine. It also comes in a x1PCIe version that you can use for triple and quadmon too!

        No_Ax, good list of stuff, some irritating issues for sure.