Windows Vista: What Not to Like

I'm a writer by trade, and one of the many things I write about is technology. I typically don't blog about my work, but I'm making an exception today because I've found a new technology which is more annoying than helpful. I'm talking about the next version of Microsoft's operating system, Windows Vista.

I get to beta test Vista because I'm writing a book about it. I'm used to using unstable beta software, of which Vista definitely is, but aside from the expected early bugs, there's some very serious things wrong in the general design of the thing. I wish I could be more positive (I do have books to sell, after all), and I know that Vista will sell a lot of copies (because that's the only operating system you'll be able to buy after January 2007), but I think Microsoft fucked up royally here.

First, to start off on a positive note, let's discuss the things about Vista that I like:

• Aero interface. The new Aero interface is nice. It's cool looking and 3D-like and translucent, and all that -- just like the Mac. Finally.
  
• Internet Explorer 7. It has tabs. I like tabs. And, once again, Microsoft catches up to a competitor (Firefox), which is a good thing for us MS users.
  
• Windows Media Player 11. Nice. Really nice. Better than iTunes nice. Much easier to use than previous versions, much easier on the eyes (big album art throughout), and it works well. This is now the best music player program on the market, bar none.
  
• Windows Photo Gallery. If you need sophisticated photo editing, stick with Photoshop. But if you need simple touch ups (brightness/contrast, cropping, red eye removal, etc.), having it built into Windows is a good deal. Excellent addition to the Windows suite of products.
  
• Windows Media Center. With XP, Media Center was a separate OS SKU. With Vista, it's built into the operating system -- everybody gets it. And if you're using a living room PC, you want it. The changes to Media Center in Vista are minor (new colors, horizontal scrolling instead of vertical scrolling, etc.); it's the fact all versions of Vista (save for Home Basic) come with it that's the big thing.
  
• Better networking. MS changed the whole IP stack and redid the networking internals, and it shows. With XP, home networking tended to be a bit hit or miss -- computers disappearing from the network, shared folders showing up (or not) at random, that sort of thing. With Vista, networking simply works. Everything's where it's supposed to be, no unpleasant surprises.

So that's the good. (And note that most of the good things aren't really part of the operating system per se, but are rather accessory programs.) Now let's look at the bad -- the really bad:

• User Account Control. Microsoft, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that users have too much control over their PCs. All that control makes for sloppy security; users can install any program they want (even malicious ones), delete important files, you name it. Well, in the name of increased security (isn't everything, these days?), Microsoft has taken away the user's ability to do these supposedly administrator-level operations. It's all called User Account Control, and what it means for the average user is that you're now prompted (often twice!) whenever you try to install a new program, delete or move certain types of files or folders, or even empty certain files out of the Recycle Bin. It's a HUGE hassle, being prompted to confirm all this stuff that you do on a daily basis. In addition, many existing programs just assume that they have administrator rights (to write files, etc.), and simply won't work with UAC. In other words, users get a significantly worse experience under Windows Vista -- and people aren't going to like that. I recommend right now that Microsoft either turn off this invasive feature, or start staffing up their tech support lines; this one is going to catch the company a lot of flack. My solution? Turn off the damned UAC for your main account, which then makes Vista work just like XP, in terms of administrator privileges and the like. A bad, bad, really bad idea.
  
• Windows Explorer and file management. In Windows Vista, Windows Explorer is back. That's not a bad thing. What's bad is what Microsoft has done to the Explorer window. First, there's no menu bar, which means no File menu. (Although you can display the menu bar by pressing the Alt button -- but what users are going to know or remember that?) Second, there's no task pane (like XP had), so all the obvious operations are no longer obvious. Instead, Vista has added an Organize button, which displays what is pretty much a mashup of the old task pane and File menu. But this is less than intuitive, and is a major step backwards in usability for non-technical users. Why hide the common file management tasks (copy, delete, move, rename, and the like)? Stupid, stupid, stupid. What was Microsoft thinking?
  
• "Streamlined" Start menu. The old Start menu grew and grew and grew with each new program you added. Messy, but easy enough to figure out. The new Vista Start menu is "streamlined," which means that folders are collapsed until you click on them; they don't expand outwards, they grow and shrink within a very limited space. Neater, I supposed, than the old method, but harder for users to figure out. Another step backwards in the ease-of-use department -- and another example of Microsoft changing something that worked, for no apparent reason.
  
• Sleep mode from the Power button. To help speed up shutdown and startup, Microsoft essentially is steering users away from powering down their computers. Instead, when you click the Power button (which you think would shut off your computer), Windows goes into Sleep mode. I hope Vista Sleep mode works better than XP Sleep mode (which was problematic, at best), but it's disingenuous to take something that users expect to do one thing (turn off the PC) and make it do another (leave the PC on while Windows goes to sleep). Misleading, it is.
  
• Instant Search. In itself, this isn't a bad thing. Microsoft puts little search boxes all over the place, to better find files, programs, and the like, and this function appears to work better than the lame XP search. But I think Microsoft is wrong in thinking users are going to want to search for everything this way; some people, after all, like to organize, and searching instead of browsing -- while a Google conceit -- isn't the way most folks approach all their tasks. As I said, not necessarily a bad feature, just one in which Microsoft places too much emphasis.

I can go on and on, but basically I find Vista underwhelming. Once you get past the pretty interface and the improved applications, there's little there, there. And the security-related changes interrupt the user experience rather than enhance it; security should be invisible, not invasive. (And I do understand that Microsoft is reacting to a lot of bad press about Windows security holes; making users jump through hoops just to do their daily tasks is not an acceptable solution, however.) People are going to complain a lot about this, trust me.

Should you upgrade to Vista? No, not on your current PC. (You can, after all, download Internet Explorer 7 and Windows Media Player 11 separately for XP.) Yes, if you're buying a new PC -- if only because you'll have no choice; after January 2007, all new PCs will come with Vista pre-installed.

Will you like Vista? On the surface, probably yes; the Aero Glass interface is pretty cool. After you get to use it, maybe no; the User Account Control security is just too invasive -- and will crash too many of your old programs. I'd like to think that Microsoft will recognize the error of its ways and change or disable UAC before Vista ships to the public, but that's probably hoping for too much. Microsoft knows what's best for us, after all.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Catching up

For those few demented individuals who actually read this blog, I owe you an explanation for the lack of recent posts. Well, actually, I don't owe you anything, but you're getting one, anyway.

First, I've been busy professionally. I just finished writing a big-ass book about Google, and am starting two new books right on the heels of that. I've also been very busy with an online project that I can't mention at this time, but it's very time consuming in a lot of ways and a very big deal. You'll know more in a few weeks.

Personally, I've been spending a fair amount of time commuting between my home in Indianapolis and my girlfriend's home in Minneapolis. That's 600 miles each way; it's a good thing I like to drive, and a have a car that I like to drive. I try to keep as normal a schedule as I can while up there, but the traveling alone takes two days (one each, up and back) each trip. Then there's the whole bit about spending time with my girlfriend, either in person or on the phone, and the simple fact is that something has to give. Hence the lack of blog postings.

I'd like to promise to keep a better posting schedule, but the hell with that. I'll continue to post whenever I damned well feel like it, or whenever I'm particularly annoyed at something, whichever comes first. That's the only promise I'll make.

(I have, BTW, been keeping up on my reading, viewing, and listening. Make sure you take a look at the books, DVDs, and CDs listed to the right of these postings -- they're as up-to-date as anything.)

Dentists

I'd like to say I have a love/hate relationship with the dental profession, but there's not a lot of love there. Let me tell you what I mean.

Perhaps the best -- or least annoying -- dentist I ever had was back when I was a kid. This dentist was a lone duck, didn't have a team of dental hygienists or even a receptionist. If the phone rang, he had to stop the tooth cleaning to answer it. Unfortunately, over time this guy's practice became a tad antiquated. Started to remind me of Sir Laurence Olivier in Marathon Man. ("Is it safe?") I needed a slightly more modern approach, so I moved on.

After several years of not denting (or is it dentoring?), I got a new dentist nearer my home. This guy was very aggressive; after decades of never having a cavity, this guy discovered something that needed fixing on every visit. And he wanted me to visit every three months, more often than my doctor wanted to see me. To top it off, he had the most annoying dental hygienist imaginable, overly perky and always talking about some damned thing that I just couldn't care less about. I gave this guy the heave-ho after a couple of years.

My latest dentist isn't drill happy, and only wants to see me once a year. So good so far. The problem is, he's forgotten who the customer is. I made an appointment a year ago for a cleaning today, and when I showed up ten minutes late, he wouldn't take me. Wanted me to reschedule. After 12 months, ten minutes isn't that big a deal. And, besides, it's his job to serve me and my schedule, not the other way around. Frankly, I view visiting the dentist as a minor annoyance at best, and you have to work harder than that to keep me as a customer. I told the receptionist thanks but no thanks, and now I'm looking for a new dental practitioner.

Bottom line, I hate dentists -- even when they're not poking their fingers in my mouth.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Star-spangled hypocrisy

Yesterday, in response to the artificial controversy surrounding a Spanish-language version of "The Star-Spangled Banner," President Bush said the following:

"I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English, and I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English and they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English."

Okay. Then explain this:

When visiting cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, or Philadelphia, in pivotal states, [Bush] would drop in at Hispanic festivals and parties, sometimes joining in singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" in Spanish, sometimes partying with a "Viva Bush" mariachi band flown in from Texas.
(Thanks to ThinkProgress, as first reported by Kevin Phillips in his book, American Dynasty.)

Or the fact that the U.S. State Department lists four different Spanish-language versions of "The Star-Spangled Banner" on their website.

Or the fact that all the way back in 1919, the United States officially commissioned a Spanish-language version of "The Star-Spangled Banner."

I find the entire uproar over this issue quite embarrassing -- especially the fact that two-thirds of Americans apparently agree with the President's latest statement. I simply don't see what the fuss is about; I'd rather have Hispanic-Americans singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" in Spanish than singing the Mexican national anthem in any language.

And the President's stance? Call it flip-flopping, call it hypocrisy, call it what you like, but it remains that he said one thing when he was running for election and is saying another thing now. He either lied to Hispanics then or is lying to rabid white males now. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Bush -- you're either with us or against us, you can't be both.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Bruegger's Bagels: Good and Bad

I've been spending a lot of time up in Minnesota, where they have a Bruegger's Bagel store on every corner. This is a good thing; Bruegger's is my favorite bagel place. We don't have Bruegger's here in Indiana, where Einstein's is the ruling chain. I like Einstein's, but I love Bruegger's.

So I've been eating my fair share of bacon and egg bagel sandwiches, which is a very good thing. But last week I decided to go a little lighter, and ordered a plain bagel with hummus. Imagine my surprise when the clerk rang my bill and came up with a $3.69 charge.

I pointed out to the clerk that a bagel with smear should be $.79. The clerk, in response, pointed to a menu item under the "deli sandwiches" section that said "Hummus, $3.69." That was 70 cents more than a bacon and egg bagel sandwich, and the same price as a turkey or roast beef sandwich. I pointed out this fact, and the clerk offered to put more hummus on my bagel. I replied that this wasn't the point, that the issue here was that I didn't order a sandwich, I ordered a bagel with a bit of hummus spread on it, just like they do with cream cheese and the like. Again, the clerk offered to put more hummus on my bagel. I pointed out that the exact same item at Einstein's cost $.79. The clerk once again offered to spread more hummus on my bagel. One last time, I noted that I could purchase an entire tub of hummus and a single plain bagel for less than the cost of this so-called hummus sandwich. The clerk just shrugged her shoulders. Bah!

At that point I gave up, but did email Bruegger's management about the situation -- after finding out that this was a chain-wide thing, not just a single-store aberration. So far, nothing but a form letter response, but here's hoping. I really like Bruegger's, but find this issue exasperating. Why should a knife-full of hummus cost more than a similar amount of cream cheese? It doesn't make any sense to me.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.