Last week, I wrote up a quick article discussing my reasons for downgrading from Windows Vista to Windows XP on my primary desktop. I was taken aback by the comments. Some agreed with me and some took it upon themselves to attack me for saying it. Instead of shrinking from anything, I decided to debate them in the comments. I was accused of spreading propaganda. I was accused of not being computer literate and using shoddy reasoning to take shots at Windows Vista. I responded to each of these, but I was really left wondering why this subject drives people to get so defensive.
My Response
Before I go on, I will first make a few things clear. I know I am in a position where what I post can sway people to or from a particular operating system. There are a lot of people who read what I say here on this site. So, I know full well that if I bash Vista, there are some who will make decisions based on that. That said, I am glad I moved back to Windows XP on this machine. And it comes down to one thing:
Windows XP Simply WORKS! Period. Case closed.
I can’t say the same for Windows Vista – yet. And that is my qualifier here. Windows Vista IS better than XP was when it was first released to the public. With XP, it really wasn’t until after SP2 that it became as solid as it is. So, good effort, Microsoft. But, the thing is that as it sits now, Windows XP SP2 is a more stable and faster operating system than Windows Vista.
If you get Windows Vista on a fully proprietary machine pre-loaded, chances are it will work fine. And that is because the manufacturer has ironed out all the driver issues for you. But, if you buy Vista off the shelf and load it onto your machine yourself (proprietary or not), you may run into trouble. Some of the commenters in my last article kept brining up third-party software and drivers as the point of blame. They have a point, but it is short-sighted to say Microsoft is just an innocent pawn in this game. Vista is an absolute beast of an operating system, larger than any other OS in Microsoft history. The development time line kept getting pushed back and things were changing the entire time. In other words, the development time frame of Windows Vista was anything but straight-forward. Yes, they had a long beta period with Vista. But, it was a beta period wrought with unpredictabilities. If a company is trying to program solid drivers for such an operating system, it is hard to do so in such an environment.
Are third party drivers at fault for Vista instability? Yes, some. But, I think Microsoft didn’t exactly help with that problem with the constant delays of an RTM version of Vista. And enough things changed internally with Vista that some software needs overhaul in order to work properly. I know when I moved to Vista I had to upgrade at least two major applications I used just to get it to function under Vista. You multiply this issue out across the wide array of system configurations and software titles on the market and you can see why there are so many people having instability issues with Windows Vista. A search for “vista problems” on Google will give you almost 42 million results!
So, I don’t completely blame Microsoft for this problem. But, some of that blame does indeed sit at the door of Redmond. Absolutely.
Where is Windows Going?
For me, this is the question. Windows has evolved to a point where it is a beast that has built up over the years, almost to the point where I don’t even know if Microsoft fully understands how it works anymore. It strikes me as an operating system that started out with a core kernel and then got buried over time with corrections upon corrections, patches upon patches, almost to the point where Microsoft is losing sight of where it is going with this thing. In fact, in the Wikipedia entry talking about the development of Windows Vista, it states:
In a September 23, 2005 front-page article on The Wall Street Journal, Microsoft co-president Jim Allchin, who had overall responsibility for the development and delivery of Windows, explained how development of Longhorn was “crashing into the ground” due in large part to the haphazard methods by which features were introduced and integrated into the core of the operating system, without a clear focus on an end-product.
Is Windows bloated? Yes. Is it probably now too internally complicated? Yes. Windows is now a core OS that is buried so deep in little features, utilities, and system specific features that it now requires a full DVD just to fit in (as Windows Vista does). Logic usually tells you that power comes with simplicity. And as Windows moves further from it’s simplicity, my gut tells me that it will only become less powerful. Unix is so powerful and popular in intense server environments because it is simple and stable. Windows is not, and I personally have not used a Windows server that did not crash and become problematic over time.
Windows Vista is a good operating system that will get better over time, despite it being on bloated ground. Yes, at this point, I’m happy with XP. XP works. Vendors have dealt with any idiosyncrasies so that most everything works fine under Windows XP. Vista is not at that point yet. It will get there. But, then what are we left with? A big, beefier version of Windows that doesn’t really do anything new, but looks good.
Where Windows is going depends greatly on how Microsoft handles their next release of Windows. In my opinion, I think Windows needs to return to it’s core values. It needs to simplify. It needs to drop the bloat and drop some of these arcane features that could just as easily be done by third-party or even Microsoft add-ons. But, add-ons, nonetheless. I also think the next version of Windows needs to drop some of it’s backward compatibility. See, Microsoft tries to make Windows all things to all people. While the hardware requirements continually increase, they make an effort to make Windows backward compatible with a whole range of older software. The problem is that this leads to more bloat and code relics that can lead to problems.
I think Windows needs a ground-up rewrite. Other tech pundits agree as well. Bring it up to the times (like Vista) but without having to also run everything else under the sun. It will alienate some, but that is called evolution.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if we ever saw a Windows core which was based on Unix? Probably will never happen, but I can dream.
Microsoft is At a Crossroads
If Windows continues to bloat unabated, I think the Windows brand will subside over time. You will begin to find more Windows virtual machines rather than Windows as the primary OS. More computing activity is going online anyway. People want things that work and are simple. And lightweight is usually the better way to go. Perhaps we will eventually see more Linux machines running Windows in a virtual environment. We are already seeing more Apple computers running Windows inside of Parallels. Will this trend continue?
I hope that Vista represents the last beast version of Microsoft Windows. We don’t need a car with more bells and whistles. We need a car that just works – every time you use it. Sometimes a Honda Civic is just more reliable than the fanciest Ford. With the next version of Windows after Vista, let’s hope they give us a Honda Civic and not a Hummer.
If they do that, driver manufacturers will have an easier time. Microsoft themselves will have a MUCH easier time and it won’t take almost 6 years to develop a questionable upgrade. And users will be happy. At least I will be.
David Risley is the founder of PCMech.com. He is the brains, the thinker, the writer, the nerd.
Man…I hear ya. One of the awesome simple things that I like about Linux is that you can develop your own flavor of it with simple managers. Microsoft might do well to follow that example and keep all of it’s widgets and add-ons as just that: add-ons. Give the people a central location that they can go to add on those features that they want. And, the same as the Add/Remove feature that is used in Linux, make it easy to uninstall those apps. No bloat, no useless widgets (I use that as a blanket term), and no extras unless you want them.
That is only one thing to improve, but it sure would help the stability, like you said, if they just made things simpler.
I think the point that you try to get across is viable and sustainable. But as you mention, over time it will get better if the Board compromise by keep it as simple as Lunix. Vista does nothing new unless being resource hog.
THIERRY.
That, of course, isn’t to say that it should become Linux, but heck man, a good idea is a good idea, regardless of who thinks of it, right?
Nice article man !!
But there is one more thing that is price I don’t know about the US Retail prise but here the price of Windows XP professional is almost same as the Vista’s home basic edition and that can be also a issue specially for big companies who pay huge licensing fees. Its really hard to upgrade entire structure’s operating system which not only cost more from software side but also its heavy when it comes to upgrading hardware and that also when it does not improve any functionality but create some more issues.
I read all this same stuff about XP when it came out. Now journalists are making the same editorials about Vista. What is the big surprise here? That people like to read the same stories over and over?
Wait a minute, you’ve contradicted yourself again in this article. You claim to have had several software compatibility problems with Vista that required you to upgrade to new ‘Vista compatible’ versions, then claim one of the main problems with Vista is that it is coded to be backwards compatible with ‘everything under the sun’. Do you realize how much old code and old compatibility was thrown in the trash with Vista? The list of legacy programs/games that do NOT work on Vista is larger than any previous version of Windows. It is because Vista throws away so much legacy compatibility that people are encountering problems like you did.
You are right that Vista is not very compatible with a lot of software and that’s part of its problem, but the cause of that problem is due to how much legacy compatibility Microsoft decided to throw away. Legacy compatibility isn’t exactly Vista’s biggest bloat problem by any stretch of the imagination, it’s ‘bloatiness’ largely comes from NEW code (and media) added to it for its ‘new features’. And that NEW code is what is largely responsible for its massive size and other compatibility problems… especially problems related to hardware.
I agree with your conclusion however. Windows does need to get back to basics. Provide a simple, fast, clean, efficient, user fiendly environment with optional add-ons for various features users might want and need… letting the user choose how much of that ‘bloat’ to install.
Hard to believe you where attacked for posting an informed opinion.
The facts remain the facts. I can only speak for a small segment of the Overclcoking community but my conclusion is very similar. Bottom line, XP works & it’s faster.
I downgraded from Vista to XP for many of the same reasons. I’m a hardcore gamer, primarily WoW and a few FPS games. I have regretted upgrading to Vista since pretty much the second week I was using it.
XP is more stable, has better driver support, and runs faster for what I want to do than Vista.
For the most part I agree with this article. However, there are two points which I think the author doesn’t quite get right.
1 – Vista works much better with graphics hardware than any other operating system. I am not talking about rendering the desktop using hardware acceleration, that is purely cosmetic. I am talking about virtualization of graphics card memory, which any graphics programmer will realize as a major step forward. I am currently working on a graphics application which effectivly cannot run without this feature, and as more games and graphics-heavy programs start to take advantage of Vista’s graphics capabilities (instead of just porting XP style code into Vista) there will be a compelling reason to upgrade. I realize that this will not be a change which takes place overnight (DirectX 10 or later hardware is required to take full advantage of these systems), but I belive it will be significant.
2 – The reason XP is so popular is because it just works – with all the applications people want to run. In other words, it is very backwards compatable. Vista (rightly) puts limits on the amount of backwards compatability in order to reduce feature clutter, and yet without exception everyone who doesn’t like Vista cites a program which no longer runs as a major reason. There really is no correct answer to this problem for MS, because backwards compatability is almost the only advantage windows has over every other OS. I think the ballance they have achieved is a reasonable solution to the problem, although probably not optimal.
I currently have Vista as my only OS, and the few problems I have run into have not been hard to fix. I realize not everyone has advanced degrees in computer science (as I do), and so it might not be a good idea for everyone to upgrade right away. When better drivers become available, though, Vista will be a step forward from XP.
The only thing you need to do to reduce feature clutter is to not include extra features. If someone wants to be able to read an outdated word file, enable a repository equivalent where they can get a compatibility pack. That way people get what they need without excess bloat.
I really enjoyed the article and agree mostly. I will continue using Vista as I personaly enjoy it [good with bad], but eagerly await the infomous SP1 which microsoft reserves the right to deny [for sales reasons of course]. We reserve the right to try and buy.
“Wouldn’t it be ironic if we ever saw a Windows core which was based on Unix? Probably will never happen, but I can dream.”
Hey, you stole my comment from your last post!
http://www.pcmech.com/article/why-i-downgraded-to-windows-xp-from-vista/
NOt upset with you though…hopefully the concept will spread like wildfire and include MS management.
DrCR
_______________
There’s nothing bloated about Vista. If you don’t like the new features, don’t use them, but they don’t bloat or bog or slow down the kernel.
I’m sorry, your article is just a rant. Why the hell did you even mention Unix? For rewriting the core? Dumb. Its just too random, it’s almost like saying “Wouldn’t it be ironic if we ever saw a Windows core which was based on McDonalds…” As if your rant didn’t use the word bloat enough you salted the article with linux/unix propaganda.
Why the hell are servers and unix always brought into these discussions. Yea, unix/servers, great combination, why don’t you mention games and unix… ohhh because the unix kernel is horrible at gaming. All the versions of linux and even apple’s coveted 0S/X are garbage for gaming.
Since the early days of dos to windows 95 to windows xp microsoft has engineered it’s OS for gaming/performance. Finally with Vista microsoft threw out their old API and fully integrated their next directx tech.
I’ll take the Hummer over a Civic any day.
If Vista is bloated and linux is so lightweight, why then does linux use more wattage than vista?
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=880&num=2
Oi, FS, no need to get all huffy. The reference to Linux was because it runs a more efficient platform. So it uses more power (no more than 3 watts more I might add) but it doesn’t degrade over time like a Windows registry does. That was, in part, why Linux was brought up. And from that article you posted:
“Granted, this test isn’t very controlled and was just intended to give a rough overview.”
Vista vs XP: Where is Windows Going?…
Interesting: http://www.pcmech.com...
I seriously I agree with you. My Dell Laptop came bundled with Windows Vista Premium. I don’t how others found vista but I’ll tell you straight vista is fraught with instabilities and bloatware. XP Pro IS THE better OS. Better in this case is more stable, reliable and faster. What this inevitably boils down to in the end is user use and preference. You want aesthetics at the expense of software compatibility and reliability then Vista is right up your alley. If stability and speed are more crucial than just a pretty GUI Vista will lose hands down.
I have to agree with this article. Another thing I think people don’t realize is that Windows Vista (which I have) was designed to be more than just pretty. I’ve read a lot of tech stuff about this OS and there’s so much that it does differently than XP and previous OS’s. It renders windows in a completely different way, has newer/different file optimizations, etc… It may not appear that this OS does much more or any newer things compared to XP, but one thing I’m trying to say is that it’s not so much about how much more Vista does, it’s about how it does things. Vista has been designed to be ready for future hardware and is implamenting new ways of interacting with the hardware. I think as long as MS is trying new things, and as long as the technology is new, there are going to be problems, XP was also very problematic and it still had LOTS in common with Win2k, ME, 98, etc… There was so much in XP that was the same as those other previous versions, just a new skin put over it and it had problems. Vista got rid of a lot of that to move forward and be prepared. I expected it to have problems. I don’t think anyone else should have expected it to be prefect.
I feel that XP is better because it is faster. Bottom line
I tried vista when it first came out…I had problems with my drivers…so i went back to xp…I just recently tried to install again…and stiil got issues with the drivers…VISTA LOOKS GOOD…thats it period…but XP defenetely gots the SKILLZ…
I’m not even sure I can say that I like the eye candy in Vista. I guess the big one here is that Vista is “pretty” and OS X is “slick”. I’ll take slick over pretty any day.
I would like to point out, once again, what seems to be the major issue. You spent, what, a week working with a majorly changed OS. You complain about backwards compatability, yet continue to point out they removed alot of the coding. Baseline, you came in with a negative opinion, searched out what everyone else says is wrong with it, and then bashed it. Try using the features INSTEAD of just searching the issues. It is here, not leaving, and people (as well as software companies) need to suck it up and do their job
salesguy, gimme a break.
(1) You assume I had only worked with Vista a week. Wrong. I used it for many weeks on my primary work desktop, and STILL use it on my laptop.
(2) I did not come in with a negative opinion. What gave you that idea?
(3) Do you HONESTLY think that I search Google for other people’s opinions, THEN post here on PCMech? Do you HONESTLY think PCMech.com would have been around this long and gotten this popular if I was merely a parrot for others out there?
I have been a long time user of Windows. I still use Vista on my laptop. I am now using OS X on my main machine.
If you’re going to bother posting such a comment, you should at least have inside knowledge of the way I work. Which you don’t.
Look. Just get a Mac.