I guess you've never worked in tech support. Even changing an icon, not the placement, name or function, will throw a large percent of people off. Changing the background color on an app causes support calls. People who don't know how to use computers too well use a set process to get stuff done. They don't know why it works and they don't care. They just know if they follow certain steps that something will happen. If anything in that process changes at all they freak the hell out.
I plan to go into interface design and that's just plain depressing.
Sometimes though, when things get bad enough, you just have to go 'fuck it, they'll learn eventually' and change the interface. I guess it just means you have to take into consideration the amount of grief it will generate vs. the benefits, so the change better be damn worth it.
I mean, people say the Dvorak layout is supposedly better than the qwerty layout for keyboards, but since it's only a few percentage faster, people don't care enough to change all the keyboards in the world. In the case of Office 2007 though, the new interface is miles better than the Office 97 interface and its clones.
The problem is that MS can't seem to decide on how it wants to implement these new features. The one nice thing about the old 9x classic interface was that everything was more or less consistent (consistently ugly, but consistent). Now it seems that whenever MS launches a new set of products they come with shiny UIs that are completely at odds with other MS products.
Messenger, which uses a vista-ish window for its main screen and the white glass looking interface for conversations. It has its options menu hidden in that little pulldown menu on the top right.
Windows Media player, which uses the black glass interface, and by default hides its menu in the top title bar, so if you want open a file or go to options you have to right-click on the title bar.
Office 2007, which... well it would be difficult to explain just how different this is from pretty much every other Microsoft UI made. To find the main file options you click on the circle with the squares on it on the top right.
There's just no cohesion at all, and these are all 1st- party apps that are developed at Redmond. If they're going to overhaul the UI, well that's great, but do it for everything at once, so that their users aren't left scratching their heads over "how the hell do I get to the options menu?".
I don't understand all the Vista hate out there, I think it's a well conceibed OS and the most user-friendly I've ever encountered, everything is so dumbed down and so easy to handle, I can't return to XP, I really can't, I've become a Vista whore
The problem is that MS can't seem to decide on how it wants to implement these new features. The one nice thing about the old 9x classic interface was that everything was more or less consistent (consistently ugly, but consistent). Now it seems that whenever MS launches a new set of products they come with shiny UIs that are completely at odds with other MS products.
Messenger, which uses a vista-ish window for its main screen and the white glass looking interface for conversations. It has its options menu hidden in that little pulldown menu on the top right.
Windows Media player, which uses the black glass interface, and by default hides its menu in the top title bar, so if you want open a file or go to options you have to right-click on the title bar.
Office 2007, which... well it would be difficult to explain just how different this is from pretty much every other Microsoft UI made. To find the main file options you click on the circle with the squares on it on the top right.
There's just no cohesion at all, and these are all 1st- party apps that are developed at Redmond. If they're going to overhaul the UI, well that's great, but do it for everything at once, so that their users aren't left scratching their heads over "how the hell do I get to the options menu?".
Yeah, more cohesion among the different apps would be nice, to an extent. The Office side of MS has historically set the standard for practices that the rest of MS follows. That's why I'm hoping some of the Office 2007 R&D is applied to the next Windows. Although, MS is a huge company, so I'm not holding my breath that all the products will jump on board.
Your insistence that 07's ribbon is inherently better because it's newer is mindboggling.
Your inability to read is mindboggling. I won't bother reading the rest of your useless shit, because I know it will be a giant fucking waste of time.
I'm not surprised any more that you can't learn a new interface that takes monkeys 2 days to learn. You don't even know how to fucking read.
Oh, I'm sorry. Point out to me where you provided any reasoning at all as to why it is better.
Hm. Is it possible that you didn't, and you're just running with the "fact" that it's better because you say it is?
How about you go fuck yourself, dumbshit.
I'm sorry DrDizaster, I can't teach you how to read over the internet, so I don't know how much help I can be. So get your special-ed teacher to read this very important message to you now. How about the part where I mention that features that would normally be buried under menus are more easily accessible? Or how about the part where I mention a specific feature that would be lost and buried under a file-edit-menu system, but was really easy to find using the Ribbon? Oh I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't be so insensitive by pointing out your lack of reading ability. You'll get better one day DrDizaster, don't you worry your little head, now.
Maybe one day I'll even outline all the things that I think are improvements in the new interface and I'll even compile a list of comments from all the people who agree that the new interface really is better once you get used to it (maybe I'll even start with this very thread!). But I don't have to rush, it will take some time for you to learn how to read, so I can wait. By then, who knows, maybe I'll even compile a meta-review of all the opinions on the entire internet and you'll see most people agree with me. All of that, just for you, DrDizaster. Well, no point getting started now, you've still got to learn how to read.
The thing with the internet is that for all the rational and intelligent people using it, there are always some vocal few who believe, for example, that the earth is 6000 years old, or people who think Ron Paul is a viable presidential candidate. Sometimes, there's no point arguing with these retards really, it's just a waste of time and energy. They are quite simply, self-evidently, wrong, and everyone knows it. Unfortunately DrDizaster, you are acting like one of those people. So until you grow a brain and learn to read, please just shut your stupid fucking mouth and try not to make yourself look too fucking retarded, you fucking dumbass illiterate piece of shit.
It's a few pages ago now, but I was dicking around with the green button on Leopard just a minute ago after reading all these claims that it's totally whack and does completely random things and I can't get it to do anything quite so obtuse as the article claims it does regularly. Clicking it in Firefox maximises the window, clicking it in Applications fits it to the top and bottom of the screen, and clicking it again returns it to normal.
Honestly, ive been running vista since the summer and come to like it. Once you disable the goddamn messages you get every time a system file is changed, it runs quite well. With the service pack, games especially are sped up noticeably. Its still slower than XP, but i like and use some of the newer features, such as the encryption.
I plan to go into interface design and that's just plain depressing.
No, whats really depressing is trying to get someone to figure out where the / and : keys are on their keyboard. Ugh just got horrible flashbacks to when I was doing end user support.
Yeah end users seem to be functionally retarded when it comes to computers.
Epyon9283 on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I'm glad you don't work in testing. The "well it worked fine on my computer" anecdotal evidence defense doesn't mean it will work properly on everyone else's computers. Maybe the reason your mind gets boggled when people up criticism of Vista is that you don't know what you're talking about.
No, I'm just a database/handheld/interface programmer who works with bleeding edge portable, barcode and RFID technology, not to mention every fucking windows platform still in use today. I guess that totally means I don't have the experience to be making OS judgment calls.
I first installed Vista the week it went RTM. The Nvidia drivers crashed... a lot. There still aren't drivers for the PCI NIC I had in my PC. The Creative drivers for the audigy 2 I have were so terrible that I took the card out and went back to using the onboard sound. I must be making this all up though because you had a good experience right?
Yeah, bad 3rd party programming/lousy driver maintenance is totally the fault of the OS. Totally.
Because that's totally the only reason drivers might not work, as opposed to last minute or unexpected changes to things like the ABI.
Totally.
Because shit like that never happens.
He's bitching about how drivers still aren't working. How's that related to last minute changes? It was common knowledge that there was very little driver support when Vista was released. Okay, that says that MS didn't allow providers a chance to...you know, provide. But a year later and still no drivers? How is THAT Microsoft's fault?
I'm a Microsoft Student Partner, that means that at my university I field tons of questions from students and faculty about Microsoft products. I also use a ton of Microsoft products, obviously. This does not mean I'm a zealot, up until recently, I owned an iBook, and I regularly play around with Linux.
I've been using Vista since Beta 2 and have had very little issues. It is my primary OS, and I will absolutely not go back to XP. As for Office 2007, I think it is the best update to Office hands down, it's absolutely fantastic.
I find, that with all the issues I help people with; with all the dumbasses who come and say MS and their products suck, citing this and that reason - that they honestly have no fucking clue what they are talking about. The ignorant folks who come up to me, all snarky saying Vista is a hog and eats RAM, shut their fucking mouth when I explain SuperFetch, then they agree thats a smarter way of doing things. I deal with a ton of people going off of bad information from a friend or relative who touched a shitty computer running Vista in BestBuy for five minutes and think they know everything. Another thing that doesn't help is the goddamn computer manufacturers who install a ton of shitty trialware garbage on their computers that make them run like ass out the gate - I'm looking at you HP.
The vast majority of the people who hate Vista and Office 2007 are simply ignorant, and refuse to learn anything new.
I am extremely happy that the dude responsible for Office 2007 is working on Windows 7. I am all for complete UI revamps if it improves and makes things more usable. I think that Mac OS9->OSX was a bold move and I always appreciated what they did. And I really do look forword to the day that when I install Windows XYZ I'm greeted with something drastically different and improved.
Also, as a graphic designer, I can say you can't please everyone. Human Factors and UI design is a difficult thing, different among different cultures and devices.
Monkey Ball WarriorA collection of mediocre hatsSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
edited December 2007
I have used Office '07. I have written several papers in it. I don't own it, I don't own any MS software except the copy of Office 2000 that came with my laptop I got in high school. And that isn't even installed.
I use Office '07 at school because I don't like the office for mac, and none of the computers at school have open office installed, and it's really not bad. I don't hate it. I just think it's pointlessly different. I can figure out how to do any particular task with enough searching, though. I'm sure eventually I'll know how to do everything off the top of my head. And then a new version will come out and I'll probably have to relearn everything again. That's just how it works.
It's not a big deal.
Monkey Ball Warrior on
"I resent the entire notion of a body as an ante and then raise you a generalized dissatisfaction with physicality itself" -- Tycho
0
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
I'm glad you don't work in testing. The "well it worked fine on my computer" anecdotal evidence defense doesn't mean it will work properly on everyone else's computers. Maybe the reason your mind gets boggled when people up criticism of Vista is that you don't know what you're talking about.
No, I'm just a database/handheld/interface programmer who works with bleeding edge portable, barcode and RFID technology, not to mention every fucking windows platform still in use today. I guess that totally means I don't have the experience to be making OS judgment calls.
Wait, you've used every windows platform and you really believe that all of Vista's faults, even those pointed out by professionals, are made up by users? And your reasoning behind that is that you, personally, haven't experienced these problems?
Then really, it doesn't sound like you have the experience to make OS judgement calls. Not good ones, anyway.
I've been using Vista 64bit for a few days now and I will never go back to XP. The only problem I had was my optical drive started to give I/O errors but that wasn't due to Vista.
Vista is all around much better in my opinion. I have no driver issues using my 8800GT and all of my programs work just fine. I see no reason to go back to XP as Vista is just as stable for me.
The control panel will take some time geting use to again and I wish they would improve the built in defragging utility as the current one is years behind Perfect Disk but these are minor complaints and they can't please everyone.
All this fuss reminds me of the days when Windows XP was first released.
Violynt on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Wait, you've used every windows platform and you really believe that all of Vista's faults, even those pointed out by professionals, are made up by users? And your reasoning behind that is that you, personally, haven't experienced these problems?
Then really, it doesn't sound like you have the experience to make OS judgement calls. Not good ones, anyway.
Okay. I guess I'll take it on faith that it's a poor product then.
Besides, I never said all of its faults are because of the users. No OS is perfect, clearly. But Vista is consistently the smoothest Windows platform I work with. XP is a very close second. 2000 causes trouble on a regular basis and I don't like working with 98 on those rare instances I have to, just because it's so old. :P I mean, you'd think I'd run across something if I'm developing for the platform, but I really don't. Stuff just works.
I really don't know what else to say. People can shout at me how much it sucks, but I prefer to work with it over most other platforms. It's not like I'm working with it on just my own system. I have to support it on our clients' networks for our software. The complaints are always the same. "It's too hardware intensive (RAM)" "I hate the new interface" "It broke my hardware" blah blah blah.
Nova_C on
0
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
I've been using Vista 64bit for a few days now and I will never go back to XP. The only problem I had was my optical drive started to give I/O errors but that wasn't due to Vista.
Vista is all around much better in my opinion. I have no driver issues using my 8800GT and all of my programs work just fine. I see no reason to go back to XP as Vista is just as stable for me.
The control panel will take some time geting use to again and I wish they would improve the built in defragging utility as the current one is years behind Perfect Disk.
All this fuss reminds me of the days when Windows XP was first released.
XP had big issues when it first came out. However, it was fortunate in that its immediate predecessor was Windows ME. After that anything seemed like an improvement.
It seems to be about as stable as XP - I've had both give me bluescreens, program crashes, and unexplained errors. Troubleshooting is a bitch though. Despite the fact that the solutions to most problems are the same, they've moved all the ways of getting to them to arbitrary new places, which are neither more intuitive or any faster than before. This isn't really worse than XP, it's simply just as bad. The real annoyance is having to learn another set of locations for no real benefit.
The UI has changed a bit, arguably for the prettier? I personally am not a fan, but under the Windows Classic theme everything looks fine, except that more and more programs will use their own custom interfaces, most noticeably all the MS ones that have been re-designed for Vista. These all seem to have a different look from one another and the desktop OS theme. They've also changed the icons for familiar programs/function with new icons, which was a nice way to confuse people. Virtual desktops still aren't as good as in Ubuntu or OSX.
Performance is about the same on modern hardware, and quite a bit worse on older hardware. There's no way to get by with less than a gig of ram, so computers with DDR1 memory probably shouldn't be running Vista. Readyboost can help, but if the computer is old enough to be stuck with DDR1 memory than it probably doesn't have USB 2.0 anyway, so it's a moot point. Fast flash memory is typically more expensive than a same-sized stick of ram anyway. The search, despite everything, is still way behind Spotlight. Copying files is still as retarded as ever (if the operation breaks it doesn't given you the option to copy the rest of the files in the queue, it just stops entirely), and it seems to lag noticeably as it's trying to calculate how long it will take to move files around.
Gaming performance has improved to be slightly slower than XP in most situations, and a little bit faster or on par in select circumstances. Microsoft's marketing for DX10 was dissapointing in that it was pretty much all lies. The only noticeable effect of DX10 so far in games seems to be a slightly better way of clipping particles on the Z buffer. There's really no game out there that requires Vista to run, despite Halo 2 and Shadowrun's arbitrary restrictions to the new OS. Really you're not gaining or losing much with either OS, Vista isn't as bad as some claim for gaming but certainly not as good as Microsoft promised.
Compatability - if you have an old, no-name sound card a lot of them simply won't work fully. I've fixed issues that range from not being able to get proper sound output to weird EAX effects staying on even after the sound card has been disabled, uninstalled and a new card put in its pllace. Same goes for most older hardware where the vendors might have had drivers that half-worked in the 9x kernel and grudgingly worked in XP. Old programs from about the same era have similar problems. Die by the Sword, a favorite back from the 9x days no longer works at all, which is sad. I've had various computers come in where programs from around the same time, most noticeably old video and sound editing software, stop working in one way or another. Newer stuff seems to be fine. Also ran into the nasty issue of Vista Home Premium not recognizing certain types of dynamic disks (you need Ultimate for that), which meant having to transfer a few drives around for users who were switching from XP pro.
Really, it's got about as many flaws/warts on it as XP does. The flaws and warts are moved to interesting new places, so you need to learn new solutions to them. This would be fine if it were doing things that XP couldn't, or if it were more stable or performed better, but it doesn't. All the things that I didn't like about XP are actually still in Vista, and in some cases magnified. I had really hoped that User Accounts, searching, file copying/pasting, enforcing UI tweaking/skinning for third party aps, and bandwidth/port management would have been fixed to at least the level where they'd be competitive with what I can get from Gentoo/Ubuntu/OSX but instead they remain almost as broken as they are in XP.
So I can understand that it's not horrible enough for you to switch back. But for me it's really not good enough to switch to. After 5+ years of waiting, this isn't worth my money.
I'm sure in time that just like XP it will be improved to the point where it becomes a legitimately more functional piece of software than its predecessor, but it's not there yet. I'm also pretty sure that even if it doesn't, Microsoft will have enough influence to move everyone over anyway, simply by making new products and updates that no longer work with XP.
Oh no, it's not worth my money either (yet), which is why I didn't pay for it because I think $200 for an operating system is insane when it can only be used once (OEM).
I just wanted a decent 64 bit operating system that can also play games.
Violynt on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited December 2007
$200? I got it for $110, the same price XP goes for.
OEM Ultimate is what I am talking about, although I guess most anyone would ever need is the Home Premium. Buying that however makes me feel like I am missing out on something.
I have used Office '07. I have written several papers in it. I don't own it, I don't own any MS software except the copy of Office 2000 that came with my laptop I got in high school. And that isn't even installed.
I use Office '07 at school because I don't like the office for mac, and none of the computers at school have open office installed, and it's really not bad. I don't hate it. I just think it's pointlessly different. I can figure out how to do any particular task with enough searching, though. I'm sure eventually I'll know how to do everything off the top of my head. And then a new version will come out and I'll probably have to relearn everything again. That's just how it works.
It's not a big deal.
That's an issue though: pointlessly different. First and foremost, it means I'm going between two applications that do the same thing and in one it's more difficult and clumsier to use then the other.
Secondly - half the reason I dropped 2007 was because I lost my toolbars. I was writing my thesis at the time - I had files, formatting etc. all neatly there. Ribbon took up more screen real estate while providing me with less information, and what took me one button on my toolbars to do suddenly took clicking a menu and scrolling through the damn ribbon.
I do not understand how this can possibly be construed as an improvement in the UI - but as you say, you can figure out. I just think it's slower, unnecessarily so, while doing, let's face it, nothing I'm going to find out about in the next 3 years.
That's an issue though: pointlessly different. First and foremost, it means I'm going between two applications that do the same thing and in one it's more difficult and clumsier to use then the other.
Secondly - half the reason I dropped 2007 was because I lost my toolbars. I was writing my thesis at the time - I had files, formatting etc. all neatly there. Ribbon took up more screen real estate while providing me with less information, and what took me one button on my toolbars to do suddenly took clicking a menu and scrolling through the damn ribbon.
I do not understand how this can possibly be construed as an improvement in the UI - but as you say, you can figure out. I just think it's slower, unnecessarily so, while doing, let's face it, nothing I'm going to find out about in the next 3 years.
Oh, and it half-broke EndNote.
Your main issue seems to be that you can't get it exactly the way you configured your old Office to look. If you personally really really love how your old Office looked, then just keep the old version. That's kind of a no-brainer. The biggest improvement in Office 2007 is the interface, and they don't lock anybody out of using the old version. Hell I'm sure there are people out there who love their Word 4.0 and don't ever want to upgrade: that's cool for them. There's always some people on either side of every single issue. Some of these people are wrong. But for all the other people (just from this thread a majority, and I'm willing to bet this applies generally as well), the new Office is much easier to use once you get used to it (which doesn't take a lot of time).
And you can customize the Quick Access Toolbar with any function available in Word and minimize the Ribbon until you need it and you get an insane amount of screen real estate.
As Rolo alluded, I think the only reason I would switch to Vista is out of pure necessity. Vista is very much a ho-hum operating system when comparing it to XP, even moreso for the average user that doesn't really give a shit about indexing speed or when it might do it, and other such trivial things in the grand scheme of things.
What they see in an operating system that is largely indistinguishable from XP functionally, that takes more system resources to run. I sympathize with people who have to sell this to someone, because starting right out of the gate you have to get over the hump that they have the assumption that are getting less performance for their money.
I also think it's very true that Microsoft made Vista for themselves, to get the next cash cow rolling. They kind of forgot to make it an appealing purchase however.
I've been using Vista 64bit for a few days now and I will never go back to XP. The only problem I had was my optical drive started to give I/O errors but that wasn't due to Vista.
Vista is all around much better in my opinion. I have no driver issues using my 8800GT and all of my programs work just fine. I see no reason to go back to XP as Vista is just as stable for me.
The control panel will take some time geting use to again and I wish they would improve the built in defragging utility as the current one is years behind Perfect Disk but these are minor complaints and they can't please everyone.
All this fuss reminds me of the days when Windows XP was first released.
That cannot be limed enough.
People are bitching about driver support, 3rd party apps not running. MY FUCKING GOD. Beta 1 came out almost 8 FUCKING MONTHS before RTM. Why the fuck did manufacturers not start writing Drivers then? Not having drivers at release for mainstream products is totally unacceptable, but not Microsoft's fault. How can MS be faulted for other people.
NEWS FLASH. New things are different. You cannot expect that all of your Win98 drivers will work on an OS that debuted 9 years later. windows XP was great for making win98 drivers work. But for the love of god, let go people. Stop holding onto the "they should support every piece of hardware ever made forever" attitude.
As for apps. I will agree that some application compatability issues exist, hoever, those *mostly* happen with older apps, and custom software. We have some custom software where I work that currently doesn't work with Vista. But, the developers are working on getting it up to snuff. Considering it's a small company with about 8 employees that builds this software, I didn't expect any different. At home, the only problem i have encountered is with PowerDVD 5. And honestly, that just told me it was time to upgrade. Even then, PowerDVD still worked, it just turned off Aero.
Honestly, holding a gun to Microsoft's head and saying they should support every peice of hardware/software ever made forever simply because it's what they've tried to do before is a bit unreasonable. Actually no, I take that back, it's completely unreasonable. Everyone bitches about Microsoft, but when they try to make a more stable OS(which I think most of us agree that Vista is pretty stable), at the expense of a (now) small number of hardware/software, people bitch even more.
EDIT: I'm not even going to touch the office 07 issue right now. It's the same thing. Stop living in 1997 people. the old File/Edit/View Menu system is so inefficient compared to the new ribbon. You just have to be bothered to LEARN THE FUCKING THING. Yes, It's beent he same for 10 years, and you're used to it, that's fine. LEARN SOMETHING NEW. Just because it's been the same way for 10 years doesn't mean it's better. MS wasn't afraid to throw out everything that made office what it was, and they came out of it with a Fantastic product. in 2 years, no one will be bitching about office 07 because people will have learned how to use it.
i have vista. i installed it. i didnt like the way it was set up. i changed the options to suit my liking. if it was something i wasnt able to change, i looked for a program, reghack, or something to let me change it. what i didnt do was go off the deep end and start crying because of a fucking info balloon. there is a way to turn them off. all it takes is some looking around.
i agree with the previous poster that said its just like when xp was released. and when 98 was released. and 95 and so on.
All of that text is basically saying hey guys it's cool that it doesn't work right, that's how MS releases software?
Because that's precisely why those of us who aren't using it aren't using it. I don't care if this happens every time. I'm not paying money to be a guinea pig and I think the "improvements" that are supposed to act as a trade off to make it worth upgrading are completely trivial.
So I'm not upgrading. And that's all there is to it.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
You typed up a lot of words to say pretty much nothing there huh
How did that feel
Did that get you nice and stiff? You get some wood there? Good for you.
The features made "more accessible" by the ribbon are not worth a completely broken UI that varies 100% from app to app and hides vital program features underneath unlabelled symbols that have no inherited meaning.
Now go on another childish rant about how anyone that disagrees with you is some kind of invalid. It's manly to call people names over the Internet, if you keep it up long enough you'll start to get chicks because of it.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
All of that text is basically saying hey guys it's cool that it doesn't work right, that's how MS releases software?
Because that's precisely why those of us who aren't using it aren't using it. I don't care if this happens every time. I'm not paying money to be a guinea pig and I think the "improvements" that are supposed to act as a trade off to make it worth upgrading are completely trivial.
So I'm not upgrading. And that's all there is to it.
See, that's the thing though, it does work right, if you have new hardware, and 99% of all mainstream software.
Because Epson cant' be bothered to write drivers for my printer is Microsoft's fault? When Microsoft said years in advance that Vista would break a lot of older drivers/software.
It's not that it doesnt' work right. Windows Vista works really well out of the box, even better now, as long as your system can support it. It's the 3rd parties that need to get their heads out of their asses and do some work. Microsoft should not be made to support every peice of hardware/software ever made, which is what a lot of people seem to want them to do. It's pretty much an impossible situation for them.
None of this is Microsoft's fault though, they can't write drivers for hardware and they can't make every piece of software automatically work. It's not their fault nor is it their problem.
Games will eventually take advantage of DX10 and make a performance difference for the better although by how much I'm not sure of right now, no one is.
There are many things to like about Vista, such as Ready Boost, I can tell a family member to go out and buy a Ready Boost flash drive and stick it in the back of their computer to speed it up. No need to figure out what memory to buy, have them order it, pester you the entire time and then when one thing goes wrong it ends up being all your fault because you opened their computer and did some "stuff".
Ready Boost isn't great for the power user, but for the average guy it can make a difference.
The fix notifications are great as well, I started Crysis and it told me it might have a problem unless I download this update and had a link directly to it. Yay.
Vista also has much better 64 bit support, although, that's only due to the awful support of XP x64 and anything is better than that.
The intergrated side bar is also a nice feature. I have 4 gadgets that I just can't live without anymore.
Using a high resolution also no longer makes everything small.
I understand that some of these "features" (I'm hesitant to call them that) are available on XP but I'd would rather have them intergrated than having to install a seperate program. Sidebar and Ready Boost are definitley not for everyone.
The main problem I have with Vista is the pricing system, it's way off. I bet a lot of people would change their mind if it wasn't so expensive at retail.
All of that text is basically saying hey guys it's cool that it doesn't work right, that's how MS releases software?
Because that's precisely why those of us who aren't using it aren't using it. I don't care if this happens every time. I'm not paying money to be a guinea pig and I think the "improvements" that are supposed to act as a trade off to make it worth upgrading are completely trivial.
So I'm not upgrading. And that's all there is to it.
See, that's the thing though, it does work right, if you have new hardware, and 99% of all mainstream software.
Because Epson cant' be bothered to write drivers for my printer is Microsoft's fault? When Microsoft said years in advance that Vista would break a lot of older drivers/software.
It's not that it doesnt' work right. Windows Vista works really well out of the box, even better now, as long as your system can support it. It's the 3rd parties that need to get their heads out of their asses and do some work. Microsoft should not be made to support every peice of hardware/software ever made, which is what a lot of people seem to want them to do. It's pretty much an impossible situation for them.
Mac OS X was the shiniest piece of shit ever created when it first came out. Forget hardware compatibility, just be glad if you didn't get kernel panics all the fucking time. Compared to that, Vista is a heavenly dream.
Overall, MS has done a pretty good job, considering Windows needs to run on an basically an infinite number of configurations with an infinite combination of 3rd party peripherals.
After a year, this has been the Visa uptake. Vista is in red, XP is in green.
Now let's compare... Here is the XP uptake vs Win98 in the first year.
I don't know about you, but this is pretty much speaking volumes. It only too XP 4 months to reach where vista is now after a year. I would say this was more than a "slow adaptation".
Wait... what? Why compare XP to 98 and not to 2000 ?
Glad you asked. At the time, 98 was the dominating OS. As not to skew the numbers. Here's the OSs in aggregate in 2002. (This was around the time the XP <-> 98 crossover happened)
I would almost say comparing the XP launch to the Vista launch is like comparing apples to oranges, for one reason. In 2007 there is somethign like 3x the number of comptuers in the world than there were in 2001. and it's pretty much a proven fact that the PC market is sliding right now, simply because almost everyoen now has a computer. The only time that 99% of the population gets a new OS, is when they buy a new computer. Most people only buy comptuers ever 7 years or so. so people who bought a new computer with XP in 2001 and 2002 will not be upgrading to at least late 2008. That is a simple fact. Joe consumer will not upgrade his OS, he'll wait till he gets a new computer.
It's a lot more difficult now to get a higher market share, simply because everyone already has a computer, and doesn't upgrade the OS.
XP is a really good OS, I'm not saying that it's not, and that's one of the reasons why people aren't going to Vista. It's not that Vista is bad, it is the simple fact that XP still works for them, and people will not upgrade until they want to get a new machine. it's as simple as that.
XP isn't broken. For most, that means there's no reason to upgrade.
It's just a theory, but I think when it comes to OSes and personal electronics, simplicity and options are mutually exclusive. The more features you add (say, AD connectivity, media players, etc), particularly ones for wildly different consumer groups, the more options the OS has. The more options the OS has, the more potential for flaws, as well as confusion. See: Apple's increasing success in the consumer (and *only* consumer) space. I think, if MS continues as it always has, Windows will be largely edged out of the consumer PC space, in favor of Macs. A dozen different hardware configurations will, by nature, always be simpler and more consumer-friendly than... infinite combinations. As consumers become more and more choice-adverse, Apple's strengths move more and more into line.
Also, Vista is hugely more stable on 6-month-to-year-old hardware than stuff even a few years old. My desktop (built about two years ago) struggles sometimes, while my theoretically-less-beefy laptop with a Core 2 (10 months old) screams with Vista 64. 30-second boots, and the only crash I've seen was IE when I didn't update Flash (and Vista then restarted IE and told me to download the latest version).
Two memes seemed to have cropped up on this thread.
1) People who dislike Vista must be ignorant of how it works.
2) Finding aspects of Vista annoying is being a crybaby.
Wow. What the fuck are you people on? There are people in the world that don't share your opinions, get over yourself already. I think it's clear from adoption rates, media criticism, end user criticism, and even OEM criticism that Vista is not a widely liked OS. Everyone might have different reasons for not liking it (mine are mostly UI design decisions) but to argue that all of these people are ignorant or crybabies is a complete fucking cop out.
I've been using Windows for a very long time (likely longer than most of you). I've gone through a lot of transitions with it and I would rate Vista as the worst. As I said before, some interfaces like the Photo Gallery are well thought out and rather intuitive. Someone sat down and asked themselves "what are the most common things I would do with pictures" and whittled that list down to a sane number of up front options. The network connection UI on the other hand is an Aero wizard that walks you through relatively common processes. If the same thought applied to the Photo Gallery was applied to the network connection UI it would probably look more like OSX's network preference pane. Love it or hate it the Ribbon in Office 2007 follows the same UI design principals as that of Photo Gallery and puts up front the most common user actions. A good UI asks few questions and offers a vetted set of options. A UI designer needs to make assumptions for the end user and initially provide only the most common options. More complex configuration is what "Advanced" buttons/tabs are for.
The UI dichotomy is endemic in Vista. For every well thought out interface there's two needlessly complicated or obfuscated ones. What point is there showing the signal strength for all of the available WiFi connections? Even roaming this is of only limited utility. At Starbucks what does it matter that the t-mobile network is three bars instead of four? That's the only one you're interested in connecting to. All the signal strength indicators do is complicate what ought to be a very simple interface. If you're concerned about signal strength, say wardriving, you should be able to just sort available networks by strength and see the actual value when it is selected like the preview pane for images.
Bash, I agree for the most part. There are some extremely poor UI choices in Vista.
I would say, though, that the *absolute* negativity you hear is generally from those with an agenda (Mac ads, those Devil Mountain tester guys, Mossberg) or internet trolls who have hopped on the Mac ad/Mossberg/CNet/whoever bandwagon.
Those who like it, and those with legitimate complaints (like yourself) get drowned out by a very noisy minority. People on the fence are easily swayed by this negativity, and I think people who like it are really, really tired of hearing half-assed complaints.
You saying "the UI is all over the place, which is huge for me, so I don't like it" is vastly different from trolls who repeat "Vista is buggy and unstable and bloated", none of which are necessarily true, or based on first-hand experience. Unfortunately, this means when you bring up a valid complaint (schizo UI, driver compatibility/OEM negligence, failure to deliver on promised features), people overreact with the "IT'S NOT BLOATED LEARN PREFETCHING" stuff.
Posts
The problem is that MS can't seem to decide on how it wants to implement these new features. The one nice thing about the old 9x classic interface was that everything was more or less consistent (consistently ugly, but consistent). Now it seems that whenever MS launches a new set of products they come with shiny UIs that are completely at odds with other MS products.
Messenger, which uses a vista-ish window for its main screen and the white glass looking interface for conversations. It has its options menu hidden in that little pulldown menu on the top right.
Windows Media player, which uses the black glass interface, and by default hides its menu in the top title bar, so if you want open a file or go to options you have to right-click on the title bar.
Office 2007, which... well it would be difficult to explain just how different this is from pretty much every other Microsoft UI made. To find the main file options you click on the circle with the squares on it on the top right.
There's just no cohesion at all, and these are all 1st- party apps that are developed at Redmond. If they're going to overhaul the UI, well that's great, but do it for everything at once, so that their users aren't left scratching their heads over "how the hell do I get to the options menu?".
I'm not surprised any more that you can't learn a new interface that takes monkeys 2 days to learn. You don't even know how to fucking read.
Oh, I'm sorry. Point out to me where you provided any reasoning at all as to why it is better.
Hm. Is it possible that you didn't, and you're just running with the "fact" that it's better because you say it is?
How about you go fuck yourself, dumbshit.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
I'm sorry DrDizaster, I can't teach you how to read over the internet, so I don't know how much help I can be. So get your special-ed teacher to read this very important message to you now. How about the part where I mention that features that would normally be buried under menus are more easily accessible? Or how about the part where I mention a specific feature that would be lost and buried under a file-edit-menu system, but was really easy to find using the Ribbon? Oh I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't be so insensitive by pointing out your lack of reading ability. You'll get better one day DrDizaster, don't you worry your little head, now.
Maybe one day I'll even outline all the things that I think are improvements in the new interface and I'll even compile a list of comments from all the people who agree that the new interface really is better once you get used to it (maybe I'll even start with this very thread!). But I don't have to rush, it will take some time for you to learn how to read, so I can wait. By then, who knows, maybe I'll even compile a meta-review of all the opinions on the entire internet and you'll see most people agree with me. All of that, just for you, DrDizaster. Well, no point getting started now, you've still got to learn how to read.
The thing with the internet is that for all the rational and intelligent people using it, there are always some vocal few who believe, for example, that the earth is 6000 years old, or people who think Ron Paul is a viable presidential candidate. Sometimes, there's no point arguing with these retards really, it's just a waste of time and energy. They are quite simply, self-evidently, wrong, and everyone knows it. Unfortunately DrDizaster, you are acting like one of those people. So until you grow a brain and learn to read, please just shut your stupid fucking mouth and try not to make yourself look too fucking retarded, you fucking dumbass illiterate piece of shit.
No, whats really depressing is trying to get someone to figure out where the / and : keys are on their keyboard. Ugh just got horrible flashbacks to when I was doing end user support.
Yeah end users seem to be functionally retarded when it comes to computers.
No, I'm just a database/handheld/interface programmer who works with bleeding edge portable, barcode and RFID technology, not to mention every fucking windows platform still in use today. I guess that totally means I don't have the experience to be making OS judgment calls.
Yeah, bad 3rd party programming/lousy driver maintenance is totally the fault of the OS. Totally.
Because that's totally the only reason drivers might not work, as opposed to last minute or unexpected changes to things like the ABI.
Totally.
Because shit like that never happens.
He's bitching about how drivers still aren't working. How's that related to last minute changes? It was common knowledge that there was very little driver support when Vista was released. Okay, that says that MS didn't allow providers a chance to...you know, provide. But a year later and still no drivers? How is THAT Microsoft's fault?
I've been using Vista since Beta 2 and have had very little issues. It is my primary OS, and I will absolutely not go back to XP. As for Office 2007, I think it is the best update to Office hands down, it's absolutely fantastic.
I find, that with all the issues I help people with; with all the dumbasses who come and say MS and their products suck, citing this and that reason - that they honestly have no fucking clue what they are talking about. The ignorant folks who come up to me, all snarky saying Vista is a hog and eats RAM, shut their fucking mouth when I explain SuperFetch, then they agree thats a smarter way of doing things. I deal with a ton of people going off of bad information from a friend or relative who touched a shitty computer running Vista in BestBuy for five minutes and think they know everything. Another thing that doesn't help is the goddamn computer manufacturers who install a ton of shitty trialware garbage on their computers that make them run like ass out the gate - I'm looking at you HP.
The vast majority of the people who hate Vista and Office 2007 are simply ignorant, and refuse to learn anything new.
I am extremely happy that the dude responsible for Office 2007 is working on Windows 7. I am all for complete UI revamps if it improves and makes things more usable. I think that Mac OS9->OSX was a bold move and I always appreciated what they did. And I really do look forword to the day that when I install Windows XYZ I'm greeted with something drastically different and improved.
Also, as a graphic designer, I can say you can't please everyone. Human Factors and UI design is a difficult thing, different among different cultures and devices.
I use Office '07 at school because I don't like the office for mac, and none of the computers at school have open office installed, and it's really not bad. I don't hate it. I just think it's pointlessly different. I can figure out how to do any particular task with enough searching, though. I'm sure eventually I'll know how to do everything off the top of my head. And then a new version will come out and I'll probably have to relearn everything again. That's just how it works.
It's not a big deal.
Wait, you've used every windows platform and you really believe that all of Vista's faults, even those pointed out by professionals, are made up by users? And your reasoning behind that is that you, personally, haven't experienced these problems?
Then really, it doesn't sound like you have the experience to make OS judgement calls. Not good ones, anyway.
Vista is all around much better in my opinion. I have no driver issues using my 8800GT and all of my programs work just fine. I see no reason to go back to XP as Vista is just as stable for me.
The control panel will take some time geting use to again and I wish they would improve the built in defragging utility as the current one is years behind Perfect Disk but these are minor complaints and they can't please everyone.
All this fuss reminds me of the days when Windows XP was first released.
Okay. I guess I'll take it on faith that it's a poor product then.
Besides, I never said all of its faults are because of the users. No OS is perfect, clearly. But Vista is consistently the smoothest Windows platform I work with. XP is a very close second. 2000 causes trouble on a regular basis and I don't like working with 98 on those rare instances I have to, just because it's so old. :P I mean, you'd think I'd run across something if I'm developing for the platform, but I really don't. Stuff just works.
I really don't know what else to say. People can shout at me how much it sucks, but I prefer to work with it over most other platforms. It's not like I'm working with it on just my own system. I have to support it on our clients' networks for our software. The complaints are always the same. "It's too hardware intensive (RAM)" "I hate the new interface" "It broke my hardware" blah blah blah.
XP had big issues when it first came out. However, it was fortunate in that its immediate predecessor was Windows ME. After that anything seemed like an improvement.
It seems to be about as stable as XP - I've had both give me bluescreens, program crashes, and unexplained errors. Troubleshooting is a bitch though. Despite the fact that the solutions to most problems are the same, they've moved all the ways of getting to them to arbitrary new places, which are neither more intuitive or any faster than before. This isn't really worse than XP, it's simply just as bad. The real annoyance is having to learn another set of locations for no real benefit.
The UI has changed a bit, arguably for the prettier? I personally am not a fan, but under the Windows Classic theme everything looks fine, except that more and more programs will use their own custom interfaces, most noticeably all the MS ones that have been re-designed for Vista. These all seem to have a different look from one another and the desktop OS theme. They've also changed the icons for familiar programs/function with new icons, which was a nice way to confuse people. Virtual desktops still aren't as good as in Ubuntu or OSX.
Performance is about the same on modern hardware, and quite a bit worse on older hardware. There's no way to get by with less than a gig of ram, so computers with DDR1 memory probably shouldn't be running Vista. Readyboost can help, but if the computer is old enough to be stuck with DDR1 memory than it probably doesn't have USB 2.0 anyway, so it's a moot point. Fast flash memory is typically more expensive than a same-sized stick of ram anyway. The search, despite everything, is still way behind Spotlight. Copying files is still as retarded as ever (if the operation breaks it doesn't given you the option to copy the rest of the files in the queue, it just stops entirely), and it seems to lag noticeably as it's trying to calculate how long it will take to move files around.
Gaming performance has improved to be slightly slower than XP in most situations, and a little bit faster or on par in select circumstances. Microsoft's marketing for DX10 was dissapointing in that it was pretty much all lies. The only noticeable effect of DX10 so far in games seems to be a slightly better way of clipping particles on the Z buffer. There's really no game out there that requires Vista to run, despite Halo 2 and Shadowrun's arbitrary restrictions to the new OS. Really you're not gaining or losing much with either OS, Vista isn't as bad as some claim for gaming but certainly not as good as Microsoft promised.
Compatability - if you have an old, no-name sound card a lot of them simply won't work fully. I've fixed issues that range from not being able to get proper sound output to weird EAX effects staying on even after the sound card has been disabled, uninstalled and a new card put in its pllace. Same goes for most older hardware where the vendors might have had drivers that half-worked in the 9x kernel and grudgingly worked in XP. Old programs from about the same era have similar problems. Die by the Sword, a favorite back from the 9x days no longer works at all, which is sad. I've had various computers come in where programs from around the same time, most noticeably old video and sound editing software, stop working in one way or another. Newer stuff seems to be fine. Also ran into the nasty issue of Vista Home Premium not recognizing certain types of dynamic disks (you need Ultimate for that), which meant having to transfer a few drives around for users who were switching from XP pro.
Really, it's got about as many flaws/warts on it as XP does. The flaws and warts are moved to interesting new places, so you need to learn new solutions to them. This would be fine if it were doing things that XP couldn't, or if it were more stable or performed better, but it doesn't. All the things that I didn't like about XP are actually still in Vista, and in some cases magnified. I had really hoped that User Accounts, searching, file copying/pasting, enforcing UI tweaking/skinning for third party aps, and bandwidth/port management would have been fixed to at least the level where they'd be competitive with what I can get from Gentoo/Ubuntu/OSX but instead they remain almost as broken as they are in XP.
So I can understand that it's not horrible enough for you to switch back. But for me it's really not good enough to switch to. After 5+ years of waiting, this isn't worth my money.
I'm sure in time that just like XP it will be improved to the point where it becomes a legitimately more functional piece of software than its predecessor, but it's not there yet. I'm also pretty sure that even if it doesn't, Microsoft will have enough influence to move everyone over anyway, simply by making new products and updates that no longer work with XP.
I just wanted a decent 64 bit operating system that can also play games.
That's an issue though: pointlessly different. First and foremost, it means I'm going between two applications that do the same thing and in one it's more difficult and clumsier to use then the other.
Secondly - half the reason I dropped 2007 was because I lost my toolbars. I was writing my thesis at the time - I had files, formatting etc. all neatly there. Ribbon took up more screen real estate while providing me with less information, and what took me one button on my toolbars to do suddenly took clicking a menu and scrolling through the damn ribbon.
I do not understand how this can possibly be construed as an improvement in the UI - but as you say, you can figure out. I just think it's slower, unnecessarily so, while doing, let's face it, nothing I'm going to find out about in the next 3 years.
Oh, and it half-broke EndNote.
And you can customize the Quick Access Toolbar with any function available in Word and minimize the Ribbon until you need it and you get an insane amount of screen real estate.
What they see in an operating system that is largely indistinguishable from XP functionally, that takes more system resources to run. I sympathize with people who have to sell this to someone, because starting right out of the gate you have to get over the hump that they have the assumption that are getting less performance for their money.
I also think it's very true that Microsoft made Vista for themselves, to get the next cash cow rolling. They kind of forgot to make it an appealing purchase however.
That cannot be limed enough.
People are bitching about driver support, 3rd party apps not running. MY FUCKING GOD. Beta 1 came out almost 8 FUCKING MONTHS before RTM. Why the fuck did manufacturers not start writing Drivers then? Not having drivers at release for mainstream products is totally unacceptable, but not Microsoft's fault. How can MS be faulted for other people.
NEWS FLASH. New things are different. You cannot expect that all of your Win98 drivers will work on an OS that debuted 9 years later. windows XP was great for making win98 drivers work. But for the love of god, let go people. Stop holding onto the "they should support every piece of hardware ever made forever" attitude.
As for apps. I will agree that some application compatability issues exist, hoever, those *mostly* happen with older apps, and custom software. We have some custom software where I work that currently doesn't work with Vista. But, the developers are working on getting it up to snuff. Considering it's a small company with about 8 employees that builds this software, I didn't expect any different. At home, the only problem i have encountered is with PowerDVD 5. And honestly, that just told me it was time to upgrade. Even then, PowerDVD still worked, it just turned off Aero.
Honestly, holding a gun to Microsoft's head and saying they should support every peice of hardware/software ever made forever simply because it's what they've tried to do before is a bit unreasonable. Actually no, I take that back, it's completely unreasonable. Everyone bitches about Microsoft, but when they try to make a more stable OS(which I think most of us agree that Vista is pretty stable), at the expense of a (now) small number of hardware/software, people bitch even more.
EDIT: I'm not even going to touch the office 07 issue right now. It's the same thing. Stop living in 1997 people. the old File/Edit/View Menu system is so inefficient compared to the new ribbon. You just have to be bothered to LEARN THE FUCKING THING. Yes, It's beent he same for 10 years, and you're used to it, that's fine. LEARN SOMETHING NEW. Just because it's been the same way for 10 years doesn't mean it's better. MS wasn't afraid to throw out everything that made office what it was, and they came out of it with a Fantastic product. in 2 years, no one will be bitching about office 07 because people will have learned how to use it.
i agree with the previous poster that said its just like when xp was released. and when 98 was released. and 95 and so on.
All of that text is basically saying hey guys it's cool that it doesn't work right, that's how MS releases software?
Because that's precisely why those of us who aren't using it aren't using it. I don't care if this happens every time. I'm not paying money to be a guinea pig and I think the "improvements" that are supposed to act as a trade off to make it worth upgrading are completely trivial.
So I'm not upgrading. And that's all there is to it.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
You typed up a lot of words to say pretty much nothing there huh
How did that feel
Did that get you nice and stiff? You get some wood there? Good for you.
The features made "more accessible" by the ribbon are not worth a completely broken UI that varies 100% from app to app and hides vital program features underneath unlabelled symbols that have no inherited meaning.
Now go on another childish rant about how anyone that disagrees with you is some kind of invalid. It's manly to call people names over the Internet, if you keep it up long enough you'll start to get chicks because of it.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
See, that's the thing though, it does work right, if you have new hardware, and 99% of all mainstream software.
Because Epson cant' be bothered to write drivers for my printer is Microsoft's fault? When Microsoft said years in advance that Vista would break a lot of older drivers/software.
It's not that it doesnt' work right. Windows Vista works really well out of the box, even better now, as long as your system can support it. It's the 3rd parties that need to get their heads out of their asses and do some work. Microsoft should not be made to support every peice of hardware/software ever made, which is what a lot of people seem to want them to do. It's pretty much an impossible situation for them.
Games will eventually take advantage of DX10 and make a performance difference for the better although by how much I'm not sure of right now, no one is.
There are many things to like about Vista, such as Ready Boost, I can tell a family member to go out and buy a Ready Boost flash drive and stick it in the back of their computer to speed it up. No need to figure out what memory to buy, have them order it, pester you the entire time and then when one thing goes wrong it ends up being all your fault because you opened their computer and did some "stuff".
Ready Boost isn't great for the power user, but for the average guy it can make a difference.
The fix notifications are great as well, I started Crysis and it told me it might have a problem unless I download this update and had a link directly to it. Yay.
Vista also has much better 64 bit support, although, that's only due to the awful support of XP x64 and anything is better than that.
The intergrated side bar is also a nice feature. I have 4 gadgets that I just can't live without anymore.
Using a high resolution also no longer makes everything small.
I understand that some of these "features" (I'm hesitant to call them that) are available on XP but I'd would rather have them intergrated than having to install a seperate program. Sidebar and Ready Boost are definitley not for everyone.
The main problem I have with Vista is the pricing system, it's way off. I bet a lot of people would change their mind if it wasn't so expensive at retail.
Overall, MS has done a pretty good job, considering Windows needs to run on an basically an infinite number of configurations with an infinite combination of 3rd party peripherals.
After a year, this has been the Visa uptake. Vista is in red, XP is in green.
Now let's compare... Here is the XP uptake vs Win98 in the first year.
I don't know about you, but this is pretty much speaking volumes. It only too XP 4 months to reach where vista is now after a year. I would say this was more than a "slow adaptation".
Glad you asked. At the time, 98 was the dominating OS. As not to skew the numbers. Here's the OSs in aggregate in 2002. (This was around the time the XP <-> 98 crossover happened)
It's a lot more difficult now to get a higher market share, simply because everyone already has a computer, and doesn't upgrade the OS.
XP is a really good OS, I'm not saying that it's not, and that's one of the reasons why people aren't going to Vista. It's not that Vista is bad, it is the simple fact that XP still works for them, and people will not upgrade until they want to get a new machine. it's as simple as that.
It's just a theory, but I think when it comes to OSes and personal electronics, simplicity and options are mutually exclusive. The more features you add (say, AD connectivity, media players, etc), particularly ones for wildly different consumer groups, the more options the OS has. The more options the OS has, the more potential for flaws, as well as confusion. See: Apple's increasing success in the consumer (and *only* consumer) space. I think, if MS continues as it always has, Windows will be largely edged out of the consumer PC space, in favor of Macs. A dozen different hardware configurations will, by nature, always be simpler and more consumer-friendly than... infinite combinations. As consumers become more and more choice-adverse, Apple's strengths move more and more into line.
Also, Vista is hugely more stable on 6-month-to-year-old hardware than stuff even a few years old. My desktop (built about two years ago) struggles sometimes, while my theoretically-less-beefy laptop with a Core 2 (10 months old) screams with Vista 64. 30-second boots, and the only crash I've seen was IE when I didn't update Flash (and Vista then restarted IE and told me to download the latest version).
1) People who dislike Vista must be ignorant of how it works.
2) Finding aspects of Vista annoying is being a crybaby.
Wow. What the fuck are you people on? There are people in the world that don't share your opinions, get over yourself already. I think it's clear from adoption rates, media criticism, end user criticism, and even OEM criticism that Vista is not a widely liked OS. Everyone might have different reasons for not liking it (mine are mostly UI design decisions) but to argue that all of these people are ignorant or crybabies is a complete fucking cop out.
I've been using Windows for a very long time (likely longer than most of you). I've gone through a lot of transitions with it and I would rate Vista as the worst. As I said before, some interfaces like the Photo Gallery are well thought out and rather intuitive. Someone sat down and asked themselves "what are the most common things I would do with pictures" and whittled that list down to a sane number of up front options. The network connection UI on the other hand is an Aero wizard that walks you through relatively common processes. If the same thought applied to the Photo Gallery was applied to the network connection UI it would probably look more like OSX's network preference pane. Love it or hate it the Ribbon in Office 2007 follows the same UI design principals as that of Photo Gallery and puts up front the most common user actions. A good UI asks few questions and offers a vetted set of options. A UI designer needs to make assumptions for the end user and initially provide only the most common options. More complex configuration is what "Advanced" buttons/tabs are for.
The UI dichotomy is endemic in Vista. For every well thought out interface there's two needlessly complicated or obfuscated ones. What point is there showing the signal strength for all of the available WiFi connections? Even roaming this is of only limited utility. At Starbucks what does it matter that the t-mobile network is three bars instead of four? That's the only one you're interested in connecting to. All the signal strength indicators do is complicate what ought to be a very simple interface. If you're concerned about signal strength, say wardriving, you should be able to just sort available networks by strength and see the actual value when it is selected like the preview pane for images.
I would say, though, that the *absolute* negativity you hear is generally from those with an agenda (Mac ads, those Devil Mountain tester guys, Mossberg) or internet trolls who have hopped on the Mac ad/Mossberg/CNet/whoever bandwagon.
Those who like it, and those with legitimate complaints (like yourself) get drowned out by a very noisy minority. People on the fence are easily swayed by this negativity, and I think people who like it are really, really tired of hearing half-assed complaints.
You saying "the UI is all over the place, which is huge for me, so I don't like it" is vastly different from trolls who repeat "Vista is buggy and unstable and bloated", none of which are necessarily true, or based on first-hand experience. Unfortunately, this means when you bring up a valid complaint (schizo UI, driver compatibility/OEM negligence, failure to deliver on promised features), people overreact with the "IT'S NOT BLOATED LEARN PREFETCHING" stuff.