Two developers discuss problems in Vista
A technical look at Windows Vista
Thursday, October 4, 2007 by Frogboy | Discussion: Windows Vista
I like Windows Vista quite a bit. I like it a lot more than Windows XP. That said, it's not perfect. There's been a real dog piling on this but me and the Greenreaper had an interesting conversation on 10 issues in Windows Vista that could be rectified.
Problem #1: The UAC. The most obvious new "security" feature in Windows Vista is the User Access Console known as the UAC. Type in "UAC sucks" into Google and you'll get tens of thousands of results. No single feature in Windows Vista has done more to harm the first impression of Windows Vista. But it could have been avoided.
The UAC is a prompt that comes up whenever the user does something that requires elevated "priviledges" to run. This can include everything from installing software, changing your screen resolution, to any number of seemingly trivial things. Even if you are logged on as an administrator, you will see this prompt..often.
The implementation of the UAC is unbelievably bad. There are no fewer than 4 different dialogs (each looks different) that can come up depending on the circumstance.
The net result is that many users have simply disabled the UAC which undermines much of Windows Vista's new security initiatives.
Solution: The UAC concept isn't bad, it's the implementation.
- First off, Microsoft needs to have the UAC prompts be consistent.
- The UAC shouldn't change the screen resolution (there's a security reason they do this but Microsoft needs to have this be an option as it's extremely annoying). This option should not be hidden in group policies but somewhere easy to find.
- The UAC should remember what programs and settings the user has given permission to and have an option to "Always Permit" that application or setting to be elevated.
| Greenreaper responds: Reading what you said about the "circumstances" for UAC, I would have been unclear about what you meant, unless I already knew about it. I think it could use more explanation.
As for why they had the differences, my understanding was that they were intended to indicate differing levels of likelihood of danger - for example, a Microsoft signed app is viewed as less dangerous than a generally signed app, which is viewed as less dangerous than a random executable. There are ways around it but most virus/malware writers are *not* that smart, and it seems reasonable for there to be some differentiation - you don't want to be as seriously worried when you're launching control panel as when you launch a random executable from the Inernet.
That said it would indeed have helped to have more options for customizing it, though I suspect the "always permit" option would be used a lot more often than Microsoft would like. |
Problem #2: Releasing Windows Vista before the drivers were ready.
As a practical matter, the first beta of Longhorn that was remotely useable was late Summer of 2006 -- just 6 months before release. That gave everyone only a matter of months to get their software (and drivers) ready for Windows Vista.
This has been particularly problematic with video drivers. Many early adopters have discovered that their favorite games and other applications have problems with the video drivers.
The rush to get Windows Vista out by the end of 2006 resulted in an OS whose video drivers just weren't ready for prime time and this has had significant consequences in user perception of performance and compatibility.
Solution: Make sure Service Pack 1 doesn't ship until the second-generation video drivers are ready and bundle them in.
| Greenreaper responds: Yes. Microsoft underestimated how long it would take the driver manufacturers to adapt to a major new driver model. Perhaps they really thought people would drop everything else they were doing and concentrate on LDDM when it first came out. Most likely the driver teams were being driven internally to create XP drivers for linking two graphics cards together at the same time, and decided it wasn't really worth looking at until it solidified. Other driver teams were also affected due to x64 driver and signing requirements, though this was partly their own fault for not doing it earlier. |
Problem #3: Eliminating GDI hardware acceleration.
Windows Vista has a new desktop window manager (the DWM) which provides 3D acceleration to the desktop. This is very nice for future applications. But in the process of doing this, Microsoft eliminated 2D acceleration entirely.
For the past decade, Windows programs have used GDI for their on-screen drawing. And video card manufacturers provided hardware acceleration for this. But now in Vista, this acceleration is gone and the result has been a noticeably slower desktop -- particularly with programs that make heavy use of GDI drawing routines.
It's a little flabbergasting to developers who were told to use GDI and GDI+ for years to suddenly have their apps no longer performing as well as they did on Windows XP. I am not even sure why Microsoft did this.
Solution: Bring back GDI acceleration
| Greenreaper responds: I think Microsoft's official view is that we care about performance we should just be using DirectX, or WPF, both of which are hardware accelerated. Obviously this is not entirely practical in some (a lot of) situations, in part because it does not have a good system of fallbacks in the lack of hardware support for a particular operation, but also because we have to work with everyone else. DX 10 solves the first problem because just about everything *has* to be supported - but then you can only develop for Vista, so you might as well use WPF anyway and rely on its fallbacks . . .
if you can find the tools and samples you need, and if it's even an option for you (obviously WindowBlinds could find it hard to work well using WPF). |
Problem #4: UI changes for the sake of change
At work, my laptop's wired IP address is assigned by the DHCP server. At home, I have it hard-coded to a specific IP. Not only has Windows Vista not made it easier to have multiple configurations for network adapters, they have made it much more difficult to go and change the existing settings.
In Windows XP, from the Start-menu if one wants to change their IP address they could go to "My Network Places" and then click on "View Network Connections". On Windows Vista, getting to the same place requires additional steps. Changing something as basic as your IP settings should be easy.
Solution: Let people create different network configurations that they can easily switch.
| Greenreaper responds: Things are certainly confuisng in some areas. It took a fair amount of time for me to get rid of all the duplicate wireless network settings I had built up over time, I had a hard time even finding the list and when I got there I saw over ten networks. When I got rid of all the duplicates, I found I could actually connect to Kris' network automatically again, when I hadn't been able to for a long time. An example of bad usability actually causing a feature to break. |
Problem #5: The new Start Menu
I really like the search being built into the Start menu. It's very handy to be able to type a word in and have it quickly find the program.
On the other hand, losing the fly-out menus to a cramped listbox for showing programs is ridiculous. How did this bad UI get into the final product?
Solution: Provide an option for fly-out menus.
| Greenreaper responds: Nothing to disagree with here, but I would note that the Classic start menu is surprisingly usable. Saves over 1Mb in memory and 40/30/60 kernel handles/USER objects/GDI objects as well. Of course, the XP one probably isn't much better. Still, I think Classic works better as a menu - and isn't that the point of the Start menu? |
Problem #6: Unbelievably bad desktop operation performance.
Whether it's unzipping a file or copying a few files around, Windows Vista is incredibly slow now. How did this happen? Windows Vista now insists on estimating how long it will take to copy files -- and the estimation process is usually longer than it would take to copy the files.
If I unzip 200 files from a command prompt, I can do it in a second. If I do it with the built in Windows ZIP, it can take several minutes. Next time you see someone on a forum say "I wish Microsoft would bundle in some feature" remember how crappy the ZIP handling got (but still "good enough" to take the low hanging fruit from ZIP utility vendors).
Copying files from the GUI is similarly slow. It's should be much much faster. Again, if you use a third party file manager or a command prompt it's very fast.
Solution: Fix the ZIP support and copying. Get rid of the "estimating time" portion (use those "thead" things and do it in the background_.
| Greenreaper responds: There's been a lot of speculation for the causes of this, from poor network handling to the kernel not releasing buffers soon enough to having to update the Explorer treeview and wait until it's completed. I think it's one of those "didn't have enough time to bring everything together and polish it, just enough time to make it work at all" situations. |
Problem #7: Upgrade Pricing is far too high
I have a lot of PCs running Windows XP Professional. I'm the only person who uses these machine. I've got my gaming rig. My test box rig. My power laptop. My tiny laptop. Now, Microsoft would say (correctly) that I represent a tiny fraction of the user base. But I do represent a pretty large % of the early adopter profile -- the people Microsoft should be trying to migrate to Windows Vista as quickly as possible.
And yet, even if I use the Windows Vista "Family Discount" where I paid $259 for the "Upgrade from XP" for Windows Vista Ultimate, I still pay $50 apiece for 2 additional licenses. So to get me and 3 machines to Windows Vista, I am paying $360. That's more than a new Xbox 360 system!
Does Microsoft really think there's that much new value over Windows XP in Vista? Really?
Solution: Family Discount should be $30 and be up to 3 licenses. The Upgrade Pricing should be 50% less than it currently is. (Vista Home Premium Upgrade is $160 right now. What is in Windows Vista that is worth $160?).
| Greenreaper responds: Does Microsoft really want people upgrading at all? I'd have thought it's almost more profitable for them to have the users buy it on a new computer.
They're less likely to have problems (both performance and general technical) and if they do the're less likely to complain directly to Microsoft about them. Perhaps the upgrade pricing is a buffer against this.
Everyone wins in terms of efficiency if you buy it with a new PC, though it does mean you have to shell out for a new PC. |
Problem #8: Microsoft Marketing failed to make compelling case for Windows Vista
This really ties into #7. Microsoft believes that Windows Vista Home Premium Edition is worth $160 for users who already have Windows XP. Okay, it's marketing's job to make that case. What's in Windows Vista Home Premium that adds up to $160?
If you go to www.windowsvista.com you see these bullet points:
- Flip3D (I can do much of this stuff with WindowFX on Windows XP). But let's say the new Aero stuff is worth $20 -- which is how much a third party would charge for it.
- Desktop Search. Okay, but Google gives this away for free.
- Windows Sidebar. You can get Google Gadgets, Yahoo Widgets, or Stardock DesktopX for free or very cheap.
- Windows Photo Gallery. Okay, this is nice but I mean, is it really that big of a deal?
- Windows Defender. This is free for Windows XP users.
- Media Center. Okay, the new Media Center is very well done. I can get Beyond TV 4 for $70. It's not as good but then again, they're not selling 100 million units a year.
- DVD Maker. Is there anyone with a DVD player that didn't get a DVD making utility?
- Niche goodies. There are some neat things in Vista like Windows Meeting Space but they're not the kinds of things that you could use to sell Vista.
- Misc. Minor features are listed like Super-Fetch, Self-Healing, Diagnostics,
Now, perhaps I'm way off here but I jut don't see $160 of new stuff. Especially for the increasing number of people who have multiple licenses of Windows XP. Heck, even the crummy Home Basic is $100 and that doesn't even have Aero or the Media Center.
Don't get me wrong, I like Windows Vista. I just don't think it was a good idea to have it priced this high unless Microsoft was prepared to make a better case on the marketing side.
Solution: Microsoft did a very good job with the Windows Featured Community project. One wonders how things might have gone if Microsoft didn't have dozens of high-profile tech sites feeding users the new features of Windows Vista. But there is more that needs to be done. Microsoft needs to get its evangelists out there more. It needs to promote WindowsVistaBlog.com more and make it easier to get that info out there.
| Greenreaper responds: I'm one of the people who might be willing to upgrade for the promise of increased general performance. The kernel team has not spent 6 years doing nothing, so there must be some value in there. For me, it's not so much having the latest and greatest *features* so much as having generally better performance. Consider it similar to a Linux kernel upgrade. Unfortunately, this is crippled by the poor performance of the shell and a generally increased memory footprint. It does no good for disk operations to be 20% faster if there are 50% more of them. |
Problem #9: The Development Tools were not ready for prime time
If Windows Vista launched and there were a bunch of compelling programs available for it on release day, then that $160 upgrade price might have been more compelling.
Unfortunately, writing Vista specific stuff has been no panacea. Getting your Visual Studio 2005 up to writing Windows Presentation Foundation apps is an arduous process. And even when you do, the available documentation and inconsistent performance (see video driver part) mean that many cool stuff that Windows Vista makes possible isn't really practical yet.
Solution: Update Visual Studio soon to have all the "stuff" on a single DVD with a more seamless installation process.
| Greenreaper responds: Agreed, and yes, it wasn't just the technical tools. It's never easy keeping up with a new operating system. However, this has been a death march for external developers as well as internal ones. Never before has there been so much gunk to plough through in terms of new APIs and application frameworks (some of which are later discarded), only to find that important things still haven't been documented; most likely because they were just added this build. Perhaps I just don't have enough experience with OS releases - I suspect the documentation issue is true in most cases - but it seems to have been drawn out to an exceptional extent. How many millions of dolllars does Microsoft make, and it still couldn't get this right? |
Problem #10: Stupid Icon Handling
The good news is that Windows Vista has much nicer icons. The bad news is that Windows Vista's icon implementation is awful.
Here's the deal: If you don't have a 256x256 version of an icon, the icon displayed is the 32x32 or 48x48 one. Even if you have a 128x128 icon (which many icons have) it will still use the 32x32 or 48x48 one.
So even if your icons on your desktop are sized at 128x128 and the icons in question have a 128x128 version, it won't use that version but will instead look to see if there's a 256x256 (and shrink it down) and failing that just show the 48x48 or 32x32 version which looks ridiculous.
Solution: Support the Windows XP icon format better -- if there's a icon that's the right size then use it. Don't abandon all those high resolution icons.
| Greenreaper responds: Agree totally, there's no real excuse for this - even if an icon is not in the right format to start with, there are things that could be done, but they didn't do it. Perhaps a ploy to get people to make more Vista icons?
It'll just backfire; most people are going to be too busy or too lazy to recreate icons, even if they have the ability to do so. It might have helped if they'd made a proper tool for making them (though I'm sure the creators of third-party icon editors would complain). |
Conclusions
So that's a conversation between two techies on these 10 issues regarding Windows Vista.
 |
|
Page 2 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #22 Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:51 AM
Uh huh, and you're telling me someone who can barely install a pc game or browse the web would be able to set up Xandros all by themself? Have you ever encountered someone that when told to press any key they responded with "I cant find that key"? I sure have. sigh
Reply #24 Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:15 AM
There might be reasons some people use windows instead of Linux or Os/x. Ever thought about that ? Just take a small step back from Your private user view.
Reply #25 Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:32 AM
(BTW some people might think all I do is use Linux - not true. I use XP most of the time except for doing office work - that's what I use Linux for. I'm just not a fan of Vista. I really don't mind what everyone uses. Each to his own.)
Interesting article BTW.
Reply #26 Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:47 PM
As far as the new start menu goes - glyout menus have terrible usability - really. You can fix the size of the start menu by changing the # of icons displayed (I'll admit there's a discoverability issue there). But treeview is superior to fly-out menus; try using flyout menus with a mouse that jitters sometime...
As for UAC - I've never noticed it changing resolutions. I *does* change desktops, and there is ABSOLUTELY a security reaosn for that - if you disable it, you render UAC meaningless because of scriptability of button-pressing.
UAC exists in the form it does because of the unfortunate fact that the computer cannot tell the difference between a script and a human being - and unless MS decides to dump a whole lotta backcompat - that's not going to change. UAC is essentially a 1-question Turing test. (sometimes it keeps asking that question, admittedly).
Reply #27 Friday, October 12, 2007 10:41 AM
I very much like the little things that make using the OS easier than XP. Like when you are copying a number of files and it comes to one that is a system file or read-only, Vista asks what you want to do instead of just canceling the process. Like when you copy a file that already exists at your destination it gives you better options than XP did.
User folders - I have had a downloads folder and a games folder full of shortcuts for years on XP, imagine my pleasure when I found that Vista included nice looking default folders exactly the same as the ones I have always had to make myself.
I very much like the start menu, it was annoying and time consuming when I had to follow the XP menu all the way across the screen and sometimes even start to move back towards the left. Now all it takes is a click and a scroll.
It may have just been me but I spent a great deal of time right clicking and selecting 'sort by name' so I could better try to predict where in the menu my items were. Vista is alphabetical by default and I've never seen it rearrange my items for no reason. Also my cosmetic changes in many various other circumstances are remembered much better in Vista than XP ever did.
This was just a list of things off the top of my head if I went and looked at the OS for a bit I could name alot more fantastic thigs about Vista. I could never go back to XP as my main OS now, it feels clumsy and old.
UI changes for the sake of change??? Come on man! This is Wincustomize, it's the very thing many of us are here for!
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:38 AM
Linux has come a long way, but it still needs alot of work before it can be used as a real alternative to Windows for end users.
Completely untrue. Try Xandros sometime. Runs all sorts of Windows applications. Installs in 5 clicks. Runs the internet in less than 5 minutes after install. Nothing fancy - everything just works. Educate yourself!!