Criticisms of Windows Vista include protracted development time, more restrictive licensing terms, the inclusion of a number of technologies aimed at restricting the copying of protected digital media, and the usability of the new User Account Control security technology. Reviewers have also noted similarities between Vista’s Aero interface and that of Apple’s Mac OS X operating system, particularly around the use of transition effects. Moreover, some concerns have been raised about many PCs meeting “Vista Premium Ready” hardware requirements and Vista’s pricing.
Licensing
The introduction of license restrictions on retail buyers legally transferring their copy of Vista was criticized heavily and has since changed. Before, the licensing terms for Vista only allowed buyers of retail copies of Vista to transfer their software to a new machine one time. If a user wanted to move their software a second time, he or she would have to contact Microsoft via phone, proving they hold a valid license, to get a code to allow the move.
Since then, Microsoft has responded to the complaints and has modified the EULA to read: “You may uninstall the software and install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share this license between devices.” As with Windows XP, separate rules will apply to OEM versions of Vista installed on new PCs; these are not legally transferrable.
The cost of Windows Vista has also been criticised by some for being too high. A majority of users in a poll said that the prices of various Windows Vista editions posted on the Microsoft Canada website in August 2006 make the product too expensive.
Digital Rights Management
Another common criticism concerns the integration of new forms of Digital Rights Management into the operating system, specifically the introduction of the Protected Video Path. This architecture is designed such that “premium content” from HD-DVD or Blu-ray discs may mandate that the connections between PC components are encrypted. Devices such as graphic cards must be approved by Microsoft.
Depending on what the content demands, the devices may not pass premium content over non-encrypted outputs, or they must artificially degrade the quality of the signal on such outputs or not display it all. There is also a revocation mechanism that allows Microsoft to disable drivers of compromised devices in end-user PCs over the Internet. Peter Gutmann, security researcher and author of the open source cryptlib library, claims that these mechanisms violate fundamental rights of the user (such as fair use), unnecessarily increase the cost of hardware, and make systems less reliable and vulnerable to denial-of-service attacks.
Proponents have pointed out that Microsoft had no choice but to follow the demands of the movie studios, and that the technology will not actually be enabled until after 2010; Microsoft also noted that content protection mechanisms have existed in Windows as far back as Windows Me, and that the new protections will not apply to any existing content.
User Account Control
Concerns have been raised about the new User Account Control security technology. While Yankee Group analyst Andrew Jaquith believes that critical security vulnerabilities may be “reduced by as much as 80%,” he also noted that “while the new security system shows promise, it is far too chatty and annoying”. Kernel Patch Protection
The Kernel Patch Protection feature (also known as “Patchguard”) on 64-bit versions of Vista that locks down the OS kernel has been criticized by computer security company McAfee who claim that since PatchGuard also prevents third-party security companies from getting inside the OS, they cannot activate crucial security measures in their software to protect the OS from intruders. Microsoft’s argument is that this will keep miscreants out of the OS and prevent the incidence of attacks, and it is something for which customers have been asking.
Security vendor Kaspersky Lab claims that it is not more difficult in Vista for anti-virus software to work, and that it would not make sense for Microsoft to stop working with security companies because it would make their system more vulnerable to attacks. Sophos adds that Microsoft does not need to open PatchGuard for third party developers, instead, they should use the programming interfaces Microsoft supplies them.
Similarity with Mac OS X
Another criticism is a claim by some that Windows Vista emulates specific features in Apple Inc.’s Mac OS X. Long-time Mac columnist and book author John Rizzo noted in an eWeek article that Vista incorporated features which OS X has had for some time such as fast searching, seen in the “Spotlight” feature on the Mac,
Smart Folders functionality already available in the Mac Finder, and that the icons, terminology and visual appearance mimic those of OS X. Others have come to a similar conclusion that Aero is an imitation of Aqua. In Vista’s defense, Paul Thurrott argues that many of the features that have OS X counterparts or similarities (such as Windows Search to OS X’s Spotlight) have been in early alpha versions of Vista or demonstrated in prototypes more than a year before Apple included the features in Mac OS X v10.4.
Hardware Requirements
Some controversy and concerns have arisen over how the increase in hardware specifications required to take advantage of many of Vista’s new features may impact both personal and business users.
While most PCs purchased after 2002 will be able to meet Vista’s minimum “Windows Vista Capable” requirements, many laptops and low-end to midrange desktops with integrated graphics will not be able to meet “Windows Vista Premium Ready” requirements and will therefore not be able to run advanced features such as the Aero Glass interface.
