Criticism of Windows Vista

Windows Vista, an operating system released by Microsoft for consumers on January 30, 2007, has been widely criticized by reviewers and users. Due to issues with new security features, performance, driver support and product activation, it has been the subject of a number of negative assessments by various groups.

Security

Driver signing requirement

For security reasons, 64-bit versions of Windows Vista allow only signed drivers to be installed in kernel mode.[1][2] Because code executing in kernel mode enjoys wide privileges on the system, the signing requirement aims to ensure that only code with a known origin executes at this level. In order for a driver to be signed, a developer/software vendor has to obtain an Authenticode certificate[3] with which to sign the driver. Authenticode certificates can be obtained from certificate authorities trusted by Microsoft. Microsoft trusts the certificate authority to verify the applicant's identity before issuing a certificate. If a driver is not signed using a valid certificate, or if the driver was signed using a certificate which has been revoked by Microsoft or the certificate authority, Windows will refuse to load the driver.

The following criticisms/claims have been made regarding this requirement:

Digital rights management

Another common criticism concerns the integration of a new form of digital rights management (DRM) into the operating system, specifically the Protected Video Path (PVP), which involves technologies such as High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) and the Image Constraint Token (ICT). These features were added to Vista due to licensing restrictions from the HD-DVD consortium and Blu-ray association.[13] This would have concerned only the playback resolution of protected content on HD DVD and Blu-ray discs, but it had not been enabled as of 2017. A lack of a protected channel did not stop playback. Audio plays back as normal but high-definition video downsampled on Blu-ray and HD DVD to slightly-better-than-DVD quality video.

The Protected Video Path mandates that encryption must be used whenever content marked as "protected" will travel over a link where it might be intercepted. This is called a User-Accessible Bus (UAB). Additionally, all devices that come into contact with premium content (such as graphics cards) have to be certified by Microsoft.[13] Before playback starts, all the devices involved are checked using a hardware functionality scan (HFS) to verify if they are genuine and have not been tampered with. Devices are required to lower the resolution (from 1920×1080 to 960×540) of video signals outputs that are not protected by HDCP. Additionally, Microsoft maintains a global revocation list for devices that have been compromised.

Hardware requirements and performance

Around the time of its release, Microsoft stated, "nearly all PCs on the market today will run Windows Vista," and most PCs sold after 2005 are capable of running Vista.[22][23][24]

Some of the hardware that worked in Windows XP does not work, or works poorly in Vista, because no Vista-compatible drivers are available due to companies going out of business or their lack of interest in supporting old hardware.[25][26]

Speed

Tom's Hardware published benchmarks in January 2007 that showed that Windows Vista executed typical applications more slowly than Windows XP with the same hardware configuration.

Software compatibility

According to Gartner, "Vista has been dogged by fears, in some cases proven, that many existing applications have to be re-written to operate on the new system."[54] Cisco has been reported as saying, "Vista will solve a lot of problems, but for every action, there's a reaction, and unforeseen side-effects and mutations. Networks can become more brittle."[55] According to PC World, "software compatibility issues, bug worries keep businesses from moving to Microsoft's new OS."[56] Citing "concerns over cost and compatibility," the United States Department of Transportation prohibited workers from upgrading to Vista.[57] The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center said that the rollout of Vista is significantly behind schedule because "several key programs still aren't compatible, including patient scheduling software."[58]

As of July 2007, there were over 2,000 tested applications[59]

Removal of announced features

Microsoft has also been criticized for removing some heavily discussed features such as Next-Generation Secure Computing Base in May 2004, WinFS in August 2004, Windows PowerShell in August 2005 (though this was released separately from Vista prior to Vista's release, and is included in Vista's successor, Windows 7), SecurID Support in May 2006, PC-to-PC Synchronization in June 2006.[63] The initial "three pillars" in Vista were all radically altered to reach a release date.[64]

Pricing

Microsoft's international pricing of Vista has been criticized by many as too expensive.[65][66][67] The differences in pricing from one country to another vary significantly, especially considering that copies of Vista can be ordered and shipped worldwide from the United States; this could save between $42 (€26) and $314 (€200). In many cases, the difference in price is significantly greater than was the case for Windows XP. In Malaysia, the pricing for Vista is at around RM799 ($244/€155).[68] At the 2007 exchange rate, United Kingdom consumers paid almost double their United States counterparts for the same software.[69]

Microsoft has come under fire from British consumers about the price it is charging for Vista, the latest version of Windows. British (and French) customers will pay double the US price. The upgrade from Windows XP to Vista Home Basic will cost £100 (€126), while American users will pay only £51 ($100, €64).

Software Protection Platform

Vista includes an enhanced set of anti-copying technologies, based on Windows XP's Windows Genuine Advantage, called Software Protection Platform (SPP).[72] In the initial release of Windows Vista (without Service Pack 1), SPP included a reduced-functionality mode, which the system enters when it detects that the user has "failed product activation" or that the copy of Vista is "identified as counterfeit or non-genuine".[73] A Microsoft white paper described the technology as follows: The default Web browser will be started and the user will be presented with an option to purchase a new product key. There is no start menu, no desktop icons, and the desktop background is changed to black. [...] After one hour, the system will log the user out without warning.[74]

Some analysts questioned this behavior,[75][76]

Windows Ultimate Extras

Windows Vista Ultimate users could download exclusive Windows Ultimate Extras. These extras were released much more slowly than expected, with only four available as of August 2009, almost three years after Vista was released, which angered some users who paid extra mainly for the promised add-ons.[82][83][84] Barry Goffe, Director of Windows Vista Ultimate for Microsoft states that they were unexpectedly delayed on releasing several of the extras, but that "Microsoft plans to ship a collection of additional Windows Ultimate Extras that it is confident will delight its passionate Windows Vista Ultimate customers."[85]

Vistaster

This term was coined as a disparaging substitute for the proper name of the Vista operating system. Use of the term was popularized by its use on The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs,[86] a technology and pop culture comedic blog where author Daniel Lyons writes in the persona of then Apple CEO Steve Jobs. This use is in reference to the failure of Vista to meet sales and customer satisfaction expectations. Lyons published an article in Forbes using the term,[87] and it was soon picked up by international media outlets: Jornal de Notícias,[88] Rádio e Televisão de Portugal,[89] La Nación

Retrospective analysis

Keith Ward of Lifewire said that "Windows Vista was not Microsoft's most-loved release. People look at Windows 7 with nostalgia, but you don't hear much love for Vista. Microsoft has mostly forgotten it, but Vista was a good, solid operating system with many things going for it."[93]

External links

Windows Vista

Bad Vista FSF campaign

References

Driver Signing Requirements for Windows Microsoft, retrieved February 23, 2008^
Microsoft blocks 64-bit driver Heise Security UK, August 8, 2007^
Software Publisher Certificate Microsoft, 8 June 2022^

Notable critics

Peter Gutmann, a computer security expert from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, released a whitepaper[14] in which he raises the following concerns against these mechanisms:

The Free Software Foundation conducted a campaign against Vista, called "BadVista", on these grounds.

Adding encryption facilities to devices makes them more expensive, a cost that is passed on to the user.

If outputs are not deemed sufficiently protected by the media industry, then even very expensive equipment can be required to be switched off (for example, S/PDIF-based, high-end audio cards).

Some newer high-definition monitors are not HDCP-enabled, even though the manufacturer may claim otherwise.

The added complexity makes systems less reliable.

Since non-protected media are not subject to the new restrictions, users may be encouraged to remove the protection in order to view them without restrictions, thus defeating the content protection scheme's initial purpose.

Protection mechanisms, such as disabling or degrading outputs, may be triggered erroneously or maliciously, motivating denial-of-service attacks.

Revoking the driver of a device that is in wide use is such a drastic measure that Gutmann doubts Microsoft will ever actually do so. On the other hand, they may be forced to because of their legal obligations to the movie studios.

Reaction to criticism

Ed Bott, author of Windows Vista Inside Out, published a three-part blog which rebuts many of Gutmann's claims.[15]

Bott's criticisms can be summarized as follows:

Technology writer George Ou stated that Gutmann's paper relies on unreliable sources and that Gutmann has never used Windows Vista to test his theories.[16]

Gutmann responded to both Bott and Ou in a further article,[17] which stated that the central thesis of Gutmann's article has not been refuted and the response of Bott is "disinformation".

Microsoft published a blog entry with "Twenty Questions (and Answers)" on Windows Vista Content Protection which refutes some of Gutmann's arguments.[18]

Microsoft MVP Paul Smith has written a response to Gutmann's paper in which he counters some of his arguments.