Does Vista suck? The word on the Web is that it sucks badly enough that we should all don iSheep caps and adopt Macs or Penguins. I usually don't get into those kinds of arguments because they amount to OS holy wars. My inbox fills with angry anti-Microsoft zealotry from folks who've made up their minds to hate one and love another no matter what. I just don't look at it that way -- and I don't think most systems admins, consultants, and integrators do either. To us, it's a toolbox.
The important thing is the application; the OS is just an enabler. You use whatever runs the app that customers need to do their work -- with the least amount of downtime, cost, and pain. So to us, the question isn't just "Does Vista suck?" but "Does Vista suck enough that businesses of any size should simply throw up their hands and migrate over to something else?" All due respect to the Apple orchard and open source, but my answer is "No."
I've done a little Web scouring looking for specific examples of Vista suckage, but it isn't that easy to find. There's far more "It sucks for reasons too long to list" type of stuff than an actual list. Then I've compared those to my own experiences, since I've been a day-to-day Vista user since last September. I've broken down Vista into some basic categories and assigned each a pass or fail grade.
Stop with the gripes about Vista installation. Most of these are left over from when Vista was in pre-RTM code mode. That's just not a relevant slam anymore. Post-RTM Vista installation is the easiest I've ever seen, bar none, and I've had to install the thing eleven times now across a variety of systems.
On the flip side, there are situations where shrink-level Vista is being installed on an older machine or a modded one. On the old hardware, I concur: Vista can't do it. But we all knew it wouldn't from the get-go, no matter what Microsoft said. If it's not a dual-core, 1GB machine, keep Vista off it or suffer headaches. That's been a matter of public record since last summer. Hardware modding is a different kettle of fish. I'm not a big hardware modder, nor (I suspect) are most of the readers of this column -- business networking orientation and all. We just don't do a lot of overclocking. So supporters of Microsoft's gaming platform can justifiably slam Redmond for this, but us wee business users really don't care.
A number of folks claim this is giving them problems. I'll agree on hating the client. I thought I'd start hating it less once I had a chance to use it for a while, but it's been 10 months and it's still clunky and nested way too deep. That said, ever since I had my SonicWall wireless problems hashed out, it's never let me down. I'm running this thing all day, every day on a home network, at client sites and Starbucks and Borders stores all across this great land of ours and the thing has never failed to connect when I point it in the right direction. I can even use advanced wireless security without getting a nosebleed. Other than a crappy UI, this is noticeably better than Windows XP, especially when it comes to wireless. Functionally speaking, I can't complain here.
I don't get the criticism about Vista security. I see comments on the Web such as, "It's a joke." But it's not. It's better than XP, no refuting that. It's had less penetrations than XP did at its six-month mark, no refuting that either. I sure don't like the constant prompting at system change -- or explaining the reason for it to users -- and if I want a really secure system for some reason, I'm still going to go to Unix. But is it keeping my legions of Windows users safer than they were before? Gotta say, "Yes." Bottom line: We should keep complaining about this because it's the only thing that'll keep them working on it, but for everyday Windows work, I'll take it.