What is Digg?276 Comments
- DarkShroud, on 05/18/2008, -56/+167Just I another anti-Vista article from Macworld.
- computershack, on 05/18/2008, -21/+60Developers avoiding Vista has more to do with the fact it requires them to write applications properly to take account of the fact there's not a carte blanche ability to run everything as an administrator. ***** programming resulted in such things as games which would only work correctly in XP if the user was an administrator. Why does a game need admin rights to run?
***** programmers bitching because they've been shown up as what they are more like. - elnerdo, on 05/18/2008, -30/+59Am I the only person who actually sort of likes Vista? I don't have any problems with it anymore. I turn UAC off, and I use the new search feature a lot (It's very useful to just press the windows key and then type an application name and press enter). Yeah, I use a classic appearance with most of the eye candy turned off, but I certainly have no problems at all with Vista.
- jbmcb, on 05/18/2008, -8/+35The company I work for is sticking with XP because we need to support our legacy .NET 1.1 code - and the debugger for VS 2003 doesn't work in Vista which makes it pretty much unusable. Visual Studio 2008 works just fine in XP, even alongside 2003. When most of our customers have upgraded to Server 2008 and Vista, we'll switch as well, 'til then Vista is relegated to a VM for testing purposes only.
- TheCash, on 05/18/2008, -25/+52I don't see what people are bitching about so much. Vista works fine for me and I've been using it since RC1. My only gripe is the slow network transfer speeds, but other then that I prefer the layout to XP and I would have a hard time going back. It's funny to me how people are being so loyal to XP these days. I must be the only one who remembers how much people bitched about it when it was released, right up until SP2 came out, and that 98 was so much better.
- payrow, on 05/18/2008, -25/+51I think Vista TODAY is much better than XP. In the begining Vista made me go back to XP but only for a while. Today I am very happy with Vista.
- FriedTurkey, on 05/18/2008, -6/+32I know people act like it wasn't this way with 2000 and XP. It was. The same stories of hardware incompatibility are just being recycled from XP and 2000's launch. It takes a while for hardware to catch up - surprise! There are bugs - surprise! There will eventually be stories about people not wanting to move away from Vista.
Macs have the same stories. Remember when Mac went to Intel chips? Only the Apple reality distortion field that it works on it's fanboys keeps people from making a big stink when their applications no longer run. - D4rkDrago0n, on 05/18/2008, -5/+30Vista actually has surprisingly few bugs left since SP1, what people don't realize is that it's lazy hardware manufacturers not debugging their drivers.
And any developer that says it's hard to write for vista obviously needs to learn some basic coding practices again. It took me all but 30 minutes to get client area glass working well in a non-vista app. And that was non-.net c++. But that's totally side-stepping the point that WPF is OPTIONAL. It's perfectly acceptable to write regular .net or native code and it'll work just dandy on vista.
the only other possible things that could be a problem are UAC and 64bit and by the looks of things neither of those are going away any time soon. (and before anyone says 'then everyone will move to mac or linux' they are both there too)
[/rant]
Though I do agree with worldgroove, there's not incentive to jump to vista. Now the in-game performance issues have gone I guess DX10 could be a big seller if there were enough games. - fkr3, on 05/18/2008, -5/+27Given that .NET Framework is massively popular and not specific to any version of Windows, I would say developers aren't targeting Vista because they don't have to do anything *to* target Vista other than not assume or require a user to unnecessarily have administrator rights. Which should be done regardless of what you're doing.
- Locuester, on 05/18/2008, -1/+22I'm confused as to why the author repeatedly refers to WPF as a Vista technology. WPF is a .NET 3.0 technology which is available to Windows XP SP2 and Windows 2003 also. Its preinstalled with Vista, but so are lots of other things not mentioned.
This article seems to be just another Vista hating article with a lame attempt to put a 'developer' spin on the story we're all tired of. Personally, I've been running Vista at home since late 2005, and hated the first betas and RC1, but it's been OK since RC2.
From a software dev perspective, I fail to see any difference except the UAC, but that's no huge hurdle! I'm just a business app developer, and agree with someone's earlier comment that WPF's lack of a datagrid is a pain in the arse! That's a .NET 3.0 complaint though, not a Vista complaint. - diggerman32, on 05/18/2008, -9/+27no... actualy its an anti-vista article from PC world
- skidooer, on 05/18/2008, -2/+20I remember it also. XP was, apparently, the worst thing ever made when it was first released.
Although, back then XP was a big upgrade for 98/ME users. This time around, Vista isn't a big step for anyone. Will it ever reach the adoption levels necessary to get the love that XP eventually received? - redxii, on 05/18/2008, -2/+19I hate developers that install kernel drivers or services for their program to get around UAC, when they could just as well write it properly to not require UAC intervention or higher prvileges.
- inactive, on 05/18/2008, -10/+26I have a feeling you're not a developer?
- sterwill, on 05/18/2008, -1/+17OpenVPN (see http://openvpn.net for info) works well on Vista, and all other platforms I've tried.
- threepio, on 05/18/2008, -12/+25Poor Vista. It reminds me of the chap who's not quite dead in Holy Grail. It's been tossed on the cart to be dragged out to the corpse pile.
It's really not that bad. True, my PC is only for games, but it's more stable than my Xbox 360, so I can't complain about that. I'd be cranky if Vista red-ringed a quad-core, mind you. - Stroggoth, on 05/18/2008, -6/+20No, I think Vista is quite nice, and I have yet to have any crashes except with my stupid ATI video drivers, which isn't Microsoft's fault.
- inactive, on 05/18/2008, -6/+20The joke is that the retard writing the article knows nothing about programming... thats why the poll is so ***** funny and the mactards show themselves by agreeing with it but not having a clue!
- WorldGroove, on 05/18/2008, -3/+17For me, at least... it's not about Vista being bad... it's about what makes Vista so good, that it's worth leaving my perfectly fine WinXP with Cygwin installed? There's a very clear quality increase between Win95/98->WinXP.(well to me, some folks claim their Win95/98 was solid).... I do not see any huge jump like that from WinXP->Vista.
My 2 cents. But hey, my WinXP is pretty much a gaming machine + MSOffice, and some Linux'ish commandline utils with Cygwin... and that's about it. Don't know what other people are using their Windows machines for. - TheCash, on 05/18/2008, -1/+14Most companies don't profit from taking risks with new tech, so they are historically the very last to upgrade. How many stories have been posted here lately about banks and hospitals that still rely on 20+ year old mainframes made by companies that were bought out or went ***** up years ago? How many Dateline NBC stories have their been on our Air Traffic Control Network relying on 40 year old equipment for that matter? As the article points out, some companies haven't upgrading because Vista doesn't support some pre-98 legacy apps that XP does, so it doesn't make financial or logistical sense for them to upgrade.
- eddie72, on 05/18/2008, -4/+16They can't code properly for their existing OS's as it is so this is no surprise. Can anyone remember a program or game out of the box in recent times that hasn't needed around 13 patches to get up to speed? I remember that long ago back in the Apple II era.
- D4rkDrago0n, on 05/18/2008, -2/+14we know, it's called vista 64.
I'm assuming you're on about the monstrosity that is XP 64, there are practically NO drivers available for that OS - jgtg32a, on 05/18/2008, -5/+16Whoosh
- ZhugeLiang, on 05/18/2008, -18/+29Perhaps they're holding out for Windows 7? Vista isn't nearly the train wreck that it was a year ago, but it's looking more like Vista will wind up as this generation's Windows ME.
- inactive, on 05/18/2008, -6/+17"Sticking with ASP.net and Windows Form Applications"
Translation: They are sticking with Windows XP because they are ***** lazy and inept. - benitojuarez, on 05/18/2008, -1/+12More like ***** coders cant figure out how to make their apps run without admin rights.
- AnimeFanChris, on 05/18/2008, -1/+10All the bad coders are avoiding development on Vista.
- PeeDubya, on 05/18/2008, -4/+13I am currently starting a WPF project (on XP as it happens). My guess as to why business is still not on board with WPF is due to the lack of a full featured MS data grid. You can buy one from third parties, but then you have to pay a large yearly licensing fee if you want any features not available in the free versions.
Personally, I am really resistant to third party controls. Recently we had to copy our development environment so that an outside consultant could add some credit card processing. It took us 3 weeks to get the license and version crap ironed out.
I guess MS didn't think such a control would be remotely useful to business users, after all 3d iridescent buttons are way more important than displaying and editing data. MS is rumored to be bringing out a data grid 4th quarter, but is is supposed to be purposely crippled. Perhaps they did not want to tread on the third parties. - dukeeeey, on 05/18/2008, -2/+11To make Vista only applications .. seems pretty stupid. So really it's no surprise. If the Vista base was a lot larger then it wouldn't be such a waste of time.
- jgtg32a, on 05/18/2008, -1/+9For a vast majority of users XP had nothing over windows 98
- Wang, on 05/18/2008, -4/+12Any particular reason? Negative feedback without details is next to useless.
- skidooer, on 05/18/2008, -1/+9It's a bad thing for Microsoft. It should be good for the rest of us because it helps other companies bring their innovations to market that would have otherwise been lost in the limelight of Windows.
- Planets, on 05/18/2008, -3/+11That's nice.
I'm still going to use Vista, though. - inactive, on 05/18/2008, -2/+10xp had the same treatment. in a few years when everyone will be using vista they'll say the same thing for the next version.
all new pcs come with vista on them. you'll have to be using them. - fuzzynyanko, on 05/18/2008, -0/+8PDFs are nice, but Acrobat Reader sucks
- happyseamonster, on 05/18/2008, -3/+11homophobic... you know what that means??? repeat after me: "I accept me for me".
- krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -1/+9Nail, meet hammer.
All of the guys I know from undergrad who work for "Microsoft Affiliates" are avoiding Vista because Visual Studio is pretty much unusable unless you upgrade it too (and you can't start writing Vista specific code because so few people have it). This makes no sense because if you're an MS developer, you're probably using VS. So now add onto the Vista TCO the cost to replace all those old visual studio licenses with new ones.
The incompatibility isn't just software either. A lot of scanners and printers still don't have Vista drivers, and their manufacturers (HP and Xerox to name a few) won't be releasing new ones. In fact, one of the guys at an MS affiliate was telling me how for once, Linux has better driver support for peripherals than the MS install base. Everyone has these perfectly good pieces of hardware lying around that are only a few years old. Add on more to the Vista TCO.
Once you factor in these costs, upgrading to Vista is just as expensive if not more than what all those nay-sayers said from when Vista prices were released. - inactive, on 05/18/2008, -2/+10The newbies dont remember 95 or 98 to XP.
You can tell the average age of a Digger because of this. - Wang, on 05/18/2008, -1/+8lol @ people digging down the guy who is telling you about a VPN client that works - shame on you!
- cheungroys, on 05/18/2008, -7/+14Well... you don't take a 5 year old mac and upgrade it to the latest OSX... do you? same as Vista. you don't take a old piece of crap and upgrade it to the latest operating system that demands more then before, if you purchase a new computer today, they all support Vista and does not crash. people are crapping over Vista because of the old hardware and don't want to spend money on getting a better computer. if you can't afford a new computer, then don't even try vista and don't crap over vista. AND what are you talking about software incompatibility? All programs i use today supports vista, unless you still use out of date software... it's 2008... not 1998. Stop hate'in on the Vista.
- jfowler27, on 05/18/2008, -3/+10I know I hated Vista when it first came out. It killed the performance on my gaming machine by maybe 20% in some games. I haven't reinstalled it on there, but I did try it on my old tc1100 tablet and it works very well. The thing only has a 1.2GHz cpu, a geforce 420go gpu, and 512MB RAM and there are basically no performance issues. Vista is much better for tablets IMO compared to XP Tablet Edition. But, I don't have a Dx10 card yet for my gaming rig so I have no reason yet to upgrade to Vista on it. In conclusion, people need to stop hating on Vista in general. It had a rocky launch but it is a pretty good OS at this point.
- DarkShroud, on 05/18/2008, -2/+9No it isn't missing half the promised features if you actually did any research. I'll give you some starter info, WinFS isn't a file system.
- KampfGherkin, on 05/18/2008, -5/+12I feel exactly the same way. And it took me maybe 3 days to really start to like Vista once I dropped XP. But when you get over it's nanny controls and all that jazz it is actually a very nice OS, from which I don't want to go back to XP.
- iofthestorm, on 05/18/2008, -4/+10Seriously, Vista brought a good *nix-like practice by restricting programs to not have Admin rights by default, and forcing them to put settings in the user folders instead of in the program folders, and it's just the ***** programmers bitching because they don't know how to program.
- Ocelot13, on 05/18/2008, -3/+9or because they dont meet the minimum requirements of vista?
so they stick xp on it since it requires far far less? - D4rkDrago0n, on 05/18/2008, -0/+6FYI, yes, I do do a lot of bug testing >_<
99% of vista's 'bugs' are driver related. Hate on Creative or whoever else's buggy drivers you're using. - Wang, on 05/18/2008, -0/+6I VPN into work all the time using Vista...
- p51d007, on 05/18/2008, -2/+8I've been running Vista on my laptop since March last year. No problems. If you have the hardware, it runs just fine. On my home box, I've stuck with XP, only because it is a "slow" processor (p4 2.8 HT), 1 gig ram.
- MrPig, on 05/18/2008, -6/+11You are aware the operating system does not unlock more ram - 64-bit does.
There is a 64-bit version of windows. -
Show 51 - 100 of 277 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is