CNet has reviewed Windows Vista, and the concluded: “Perhaps we’re spoiled, but after more than five years of development, there’s a definite ‘Is that all?’ feeling about Windows Vista. Like cramming an info-dump into a book report the night before it’s due, there certainly are a lot of individual features within the operating system, but the real value lies in their execution – how the user experiences (or doesn’t experience) these – and like the info-dump, we came away shaking our heads, disappointed.” Additionally, Vista’s OEM pricing details are out and about.
For me, the cost of Vista Ultimate verses what it offers just doesn’t add up. I know that I certainly will not be purchasing a license to the Ultimate edition of Vista, if I end up moving to Vista at all.
and really the only way most people will switch to Vista is not because it’s better but that’s the only OS you get with a new pc. That’s a cheap win for microsoft.
Not much compared to XP, considering all the bells and whistles that Vista has can be added to XP with a few 3rd party packages.
<troll>
Unless you’re a gamer, I can’t see the point. IMHO, my gaming life will stop with Diretx9 it seems, after that, I’ll have to spend more time out of the basement, and acquire a normal sex life. Damn you Microsoft!
</troll>
I KNOW people will be saying ‘you people say this every release of windows’, but IMHO:
– Win95 was a massive step over 3.1
(lets forget WinMe)
– Win2k was a huge step over Win98
– WinXP was a negligible improvement on Win2k
– Windows Vista is a bloaded POS, and is even less of an improvement over XP.
I’ll spend my money, and save my PC’s resources on something else thanks!
(KDE4 is looking to turn out to something really revolutionary!)
“<troll>
Unless you’re a gamer, I can’t see the point. IMHO, my gaming life will stop with Diretx9 it seems, after that, I’ll have to spend more time out of the basement, and acquire a normal sex life. Damn you Microsoft!
</troll> ”
My gaming stopped when the graphics got better and the game play got worse.
Super Mario Bros. Rocks
Agreed, apart from the community aspect of playing Enemy Territory online, with Teamspeak……..
Other than that, gimme a ZX Spectrum or a c64 emulator with games any day !!!
b-b-b-b-but… Vista is more purday than XP!!11
I’ve been using the RTM version of Vista (legally acquired through my university) for a few days now, and my problem with it is not so much a specific feature, but that the whole thing is not an improvement over XP.
When I use Vista, I don’t get the impression that Microsoft looked at XP and made it better, it feels more like they just went out and made something new, but didn’t learn anything from their previous products in the process.
Yes, there are some nice features in Vista (Aero, search, better task manager, better windows update, etc) but there are equally as many possibilities for improvement over XP that they didn’t implement and inconsistencies that just shouldn’t be there.
Why can’t I change the volume when I mousewheel over the volume system tray icon?
Why does ALT-Tab sometimes not actually switch apps?
Why do some apps not have drop shadows on their windows?
Why is the control panel so godawfully confusing? (the search saves this one)
Why can’t I access the menu in Windows Explorer with the mouse? (yes I can press ALT, who knows to do that?)
Why is the FTP support in Explorer still so fragile?
Why does the “off” symbol on the start menu put the computer to sleep, but on the login screen the same button shuts it off?
I could go on for pages. I’m not saying Vista is a bad OS, it’s just not better in any convincing way. And the price for this unimprovement? Far greater resource usage than XP (my system uses over 400MB of RAM on fresh boot while my year old heavily used XP install uses less than 200 with several autostart programs).
I don’t mind XP, and I think if Microsoft had just fixed the problems in XP they would have come out with a winner, but instead we have something that is merely “different”.
Edited 2007-01-25 02:01
Almost every second news here is related to vista, ten reasons to use vista, ten reasons not to use vista, vista costs, blah blah blah …
It was boring a month ago and now it is even jelous.
Let they release this sh!t and we all will have peace again.
What about article Ten reasons to start thinking?
Sorry, but nobody will get any peace once it’s fully released either. The comparison articles will continue for months. You’ll also get the flame articles and the FUD articles and the TRUTH articles. Of course we can’t for get the security articles and the articles about nothing.
When Vista is fully out we’re going to get more articles. If you are a Vista or Microsoft fan you’ll eat ’em up, but if your not you hate them.
If you are a Vista or Microsoft fan you’ll eat ’em up,
I take it from that sentence that you have not tried Vista.
When you do, you will realise that not even one die-hard Microsoft fan will enjoy the “benefits” of Vista.
I have used Vista. I’ve used it with all the bells and whistles turned on and working. It is impressive looking, but so is xgl/compiz.
Not everybody is going to go nuts for Vista (me being one of those people), but some will just think it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. Those people will love any favorable review of Vista.
I haven’t ran it yet, but a friend of mine (power user) had this to say about it …
The problem is, I have great hardware – but that doesn’t mean I want all that fruity mac crap on my desktop. I was initially concerned there would be no way to deactivate the fluff and get back to what is essentially a Windows 2000 configuration.
What makes all this pointless is – once you “degrade” the thing back to what’s sleek and comfortable, you’re basically back to XP with IE7 and Powerdesk installed.
I found the extra security to be a HUGE nusance (as most power users will) and I went and switched it off. Now that I no longer have to click a pop up window every single time something on my system does something even REMOTELY interesting, all that “run as user” protection is gone. So again, we’re back to being Windows XP.
So – if you shut off all the Aero frothy crap … you turn off all the goofy file indexing, all the explorer bolt ons … you shut off themes restore yourself back to a working start menu (I hate XPs, Vista is a BIT better, but I’m much more comfy with Windows 2000’s “classic” start menu … oh, and finally turn off the “click if that’s ok” so called “protection” features (pointless too, BTW, because what do stupid users do the SECOND that a dialog box pops up with an OK button on it? They click it … so much for extra security) … What you have is Windows XP.
If you want OSX, by all means, get a Mac. I run Windows XP because I like the control. I like the ability to close down all the crap that inevitably gets in my way.
To me, Vista (thus far) is a patched up XP with OSX UI strapped on for the Mac-envious people to have some glassy-ass interface.
IE7 is a great improvement over IE6. It’s a shame that all the “innovation” in it has been done for years with Opera then Firefox. I salute them for that, but you can get that with XP.
Now, I’m COMPLETELY open to someone more knowledgable about Vista to explain to me what Vista offers up based on my needs (as mentioned above). Just like with XP (XP has FAR better memory handling than 2000 does – Vista doesn’t appear to be significant), if Vista can offer me up something I want and need, I’ll TOTALLY take a look at it again. I’m guessing, however, that Vista wasn’t targeted to me or a lot of people in this forum.
XP is fantastic. They made it TOO GOOD for it to be followed by what is really an incremental upgrade to XP (once you strip it down). XP is the best thing that MS has ever done – and they have a lot of work to make me want to upgrade and go through all the rigamarole of constant phoning home, DRM increases, etc.
it’s funny how everyone here wants to compare the tech of aero vs aqua vs xgl and the first thing power users want to do is TURN OFF ALL THE FRIGGIN CR@P. Sorry.
/me running XP in classic mode with no stupid animations, candies, genies or squishy windows.
I agree; give me widgets that are nice, fonts that are rendered smoothly, and skip on the effects and swooshing; its all a waste of GPU and CPU power that could be otherwised used for something useful – like loading my applications that wee bit faster.
With that being said, I am tempted by Windows Vista, not because of Windows Vista but Microsoft Office 2007 – with that being said, if KDE 4 really turns out to be as good as promised, and a distribution out there does a good job at bundling it OR FreeBSD finally get ipw3945 up and running with FreeBSD 6.3, the reason to move will be non-existant.
Comparing the features of KDE 4 to Windows Vista, one has to ask whether Windows Vista is truely worth the retail price that Microsoft is asking for – sure, the marketplace will speak for itself, but lets remember the marketplace is filled with alot of idiots.
Edited 2007-01-25 06:53
I’m sure you are aware, but you don’t need Vista to run Office 2007. It works perfectly well on Windows XP.
True, but I might as well go for the two at the same time given the fact that EOL is coming soon for Windows XP – I might as well get comfortable with the new operating system before it is thrust upon me in a few years.
Thats not to say that there aren’t any good features in Windows Vista, its just the cost I’ve seen so far, its pretty hard to justify the pricing, especially given the financial situation that I am in right now – student.
Heh, same here. I would love to have the GPU draw all the windows like in XGL, Aero GLass etc, but without the shitty effects and themes.
XP is fantastic. They made it TOO GOOD for it to be followed by what is really an incremental upgrade to XP (once you strip it down). XP is the best thing that MS has ever done – and they have a lot of work to make me want to upgrade and go through all the rigamarole of constant phoning home, DRM increases, etc.
The question is, why did it take them FIVE YEARS to release a point-zero-one upgrade?
This is the question nobody seems to be asking. Is the thought of Microsoft being a colossal failure just too terrible to contemplate?
Edited 2007-01-25 09:59
What exactly are you refurring to?
XP is 5.1, Vista is 6.0
Beyond just the numbers, 90% of Vista has been completely reworked.
New net stack, new API, new presentation layer, new UI stuff, new, new new new new.
What exactly are you refurring to?
XP is 5.1, Vista is 6.0
Beyond just the numbers, 90% of Vista has been completely reworked.
New net stack, new API, new presentation layer, new UI stuff, new, new new new new.
I have no interest in how Microsoft number their operating systems, since they deliberately changed the name of Windows NT 5.1 to XP to make it sound like a whole new thing; their version numbering is driven by nothing but marketing. Regardless, nobody cares about the changes under the hood. Microsoft might as well be trying to market OS/2 version 3.
Hmm, not really, as 2000 was NT5.
And in reality, XP was completely different, as it was marketed at consumers, who were sitll on Win98SE… a BIG change.
Also, I wasn’t playing the numbers game you were. I strayed away from that. You are the one that called Vista a .01 release when most of the OS is new or changed significantly. I am not saying it’s changed better or worse, but the fact that it is changed is what we are talking about here.
So, nobody cares about the major changes under the hood, and nobody cares about the major changes on top of the hood…. so basically you are saying you are SO biased that even if Microsoft made the perfect OS, you wouldn’t care?
Hmm, not really, as 2000 was NT5.
Well the contention that XP is NT 5.1 was not originally mine. Nevertheless, I’m having trouble thinking of a release of an NT-based OS between W2K and XP, so XP would indeed count as 5.1.
And in reality, XP was completely different, as it was marketed at consumers, who were sitll on Win98SE… a BIG change.
XP was most certainly not “completely”different; the only difference was that it was marketed to consumers; however, it was based on the W2K/NT5 code base.
Also, I wasn’t playing the numbers game you were. I strayed away from that. You are the one that called Vista a .01 release when most of the OS is new or changed significantly. I am not saying it’s changed better or worse, but the fact that it is changed is what we are talking about here.
It really doesn’t matter whether one “plays the numbers game” of saying Vista is 6, 5.1, 5.01 or 5.001, or says “Vista has/hasn’t changed significantly” – they both mean the same thing. When a company spends five years making “significant changes” to their product, its customers expect something tangible. They don’t expect the end-result of the work to mean nothing to them in practice.
So, nobody cares about the major changes under the hood, and nobody cares about the major changes on top of the hood…. so basically you are saying you are SO biased that even if Microsoft made the perfect OS, you wouldn’t care?
Sorry, but it’s not just me saying I’m unimpressed with Vista. Everyone is saying that bar astroturfers. I accept that in principle, I could be writing all the negative articles on the ‘net and in the printed press about Vista, but it just so happens that I’m not.
Also, “the perfect OS” is in the eye of the beholder. Although I have used and enjoyed several proprietary operating systems in the past, I would not now consider an OS that wasn’t available from a variety of suppliers; the interplay between SLS and Slackware, RedHat and SUSE, etc., eventually gave us products like Ubuntu. The monopoly position of Microsoft gave us: Windows98 and IE6. Oh dear.
The point about XP being completely different is that the people it was marketed towards are the consumers, and consumers were using Win9x. So yes, it was completely different.
Much in the same way that Vista is completely different now.
I”m sorry, but I find it hard to believe that you have ever used Vista.
Also, the only negative reviews I’ve read are people who haven’t used it yet.
When people like Leo Leporte, or Merlin Mann (and the rest of the MacBreak Weekly crew) actually only had good things tos ay about Vista, THAT is something.
The point about XP being completely different is that the people it was marketed towards are the consumers, and consumers were using Win9x. So yes, it was completely different.
XP was not completely different from NT architecturally, which was my point. What Marketing says about something doesn’t interest me.
I”m sorry, but I find it hard to believe that you have ever used Vista.
I didn’t say I had used Vista. I said the reviews of Vista have been overwhelmingly negative.
Also, the only negative reviews I’ve read are people who haven’t used it yet.
Then you aren’t looking very hard.
When people like Leo Leporte, or Merlin Mann (and the rest of the MacBreak Weekly crew) actually only had good things tos ay about Vista, THAT is something.
I hate to agree with John C Dvorak on anything, but if so then it just shows the wide gulf between MacOS users and Windows users: MacOS users, apparently, despite having a system which is rock-solid, virus-free, well-engineered, and open source, are principally concerned with bling; Windows users, so the argument continues, are principally concerned with function.
I never bought the argument before, but it certainly would explain why Mac users are more excited about Vista than Windows users. The interesting thing is that despite the vaunted consistency of the MacOS, reviewers such as those you cited are reacting favourably to Vista despite the fact that several unfavourable reviews have focussed on the inconsistency of the GUI.
You do realize that is the EXACT thing that was said about 2000 up until around 2006, when Vista’s ship date was getting closer and closer.
I have no objections to Microsoft making their user interfaces all fluffy, as long as it can all be turned off.
The one area where they have failed in (IMO) is Windows Explorer. Personally, I can’t stand having the toolbar above the menus, I don’t like the new treeview control, but worst of all, I can no longer drag and drop files from an Explorer window into a command prompt window. This is bad news for developers and sys admins.
The new kernel and other frameworks seems to be ignored by most.. so I’m glad to hear about Vista’s very real benefits over XP for audio producers in this interview with Cakewalk’s CTO and a Sonar engineer:
http://createdigitalmusic.com/2007/01/19/vista-for-music-pro-audio-…
WaveRT driver: lower CPU consumption at lower latencies
WaveRT is the new Vista architecture for high-performance, real-time, low-latency audio drivers, designed for pro audio. The streaming model for such drivers is somewhat like [Steinberg’s] ASIO and [Windows’ previous driver model] DirectKS, but there are important differences. The WaveRT signal flow permits direct access to the internal audio hardware buffers and sample position counters, allowing a DAW application to stream audio to the hardware in the most efficient manner possible. Direct access to buffers and sample position means no costly user mode to kernel mode transitions on each audio pump cycle. With ASIO and Kernel Streaming (Direct KS WDM drivers) these transitions were unavoidable in Windows XP. This translates into lower CPU consumption while running at very low audio playback latencies.
Most off-the-shelf Vista-logo machines that will be available in 2007 will ship with onboard audio that is WaveRT-compliant. This promises low-latency audio playback from even consumer-grade laptops and desktops. When more pro audio vendors make WaveRT drivers available, DAW users will benefit from more efficient low-latency playback.
Multimedia Class Scheduler (MMCSS): more glitch-resistant audio playback
The Multimedia Class Scheduler service allows multimedia applications to register their time-critical processing to run at an elevated thread priority, thus ensuring prioritized access to CPU resources for time-sensitive DSP processing and mixing tasks. You can think of this as anti-glitch insurance against other, non-audio-related processes running on your computer competing for CPU. Basically, with MMCSS you minimize interruptions or glitches in audio playback even when running other applications in the background.
Well, I understood less than half of that, but there’s the problem. Most reviewers just do a surface check, so the real changes will not be apparent. That could make it a hard retail sell for Microsoft.
Most reviewers just do a surface check, so the real changes will not be apparent.
Some changes won’t be so easy to find but, in the long run, they will emerge.
For example, even on older hardware, Vista is snappier than XP. Plus, Vista network stack is a lot faster than XP. I’m running it since a few days to check for S/W compatibility before installing on my main PC and I can tell Internet activities are a lot faster than before (XP Pro. Overall, on a 512MB AMD XP 2500 system (where only 480MB are available because 32MB shared mem goes to video), Vista is working like a charm, except for Aero, which requires more video memory.
“For example, even on older hardware, Vista is snappier than XP. Plus, Vista network stack is a lot faster”
I disagree. Maybe because I’m using RC1 and you have something newer… It’s slower, less responsive. Even w/o all the fancy stuff. Games I’ve benched, some are a little faster, some are slower, some are real slow. It’s broken some games. Some I can bring back with tweaks…. As for the network stack, for some strange reason it errors out randomly when copying files from a 2k3 server sometimes.
I’ll end up stuck with Vista at work because I’ll have to support it… and at home so I can play DX10 games in a few years once they drop DX9 support.
As a gamer @ home I pray for the day when they start porting more games to other OS’s including Mac and *nix, or for wine/cedega to progress farther than they are now.
For the most part, I’m not really impressed. I don’t like that they change the name of random programs (like add/remove programs) and the locations of things for no obvious reasons.
Actually he also makes one good point about utitlizing the GPU, as far as audio goes: with just about all the audio applications and plugins updating and drawing things on the screen in realtime, offloading these functions to the GPU would give you some extra spare CPU time for more audio functionality.
Reviews are always subjective. CNet lists among Cons that search is not on the desktop. That is perfectly alright with me, I for one LOVE it being in Start menu. I just tap WinKey and few other keys and bing, there I am. Search on desktop would make me mouse to the right place. “nor will you miss the tiny preview windows enabled on your desktop display”… taskbar thumbnails are GREAT usability feature not only for task switching, but also for easy status-checking without need to actually switch to particular task/window. We need to think a bit about new features.
And we should stop having our thoughts on Vista based on comparison with 6 years old XP. Most of people don’t upgrade OS anyway – they get the latest thing with a new computer. And Vista offers more for comparable price as XP. There is no reason NOT to get new computer with Vista.
Edited 2007-01-25 09:27
Reviews are always subjective.
When the reviews are saying mostly the same thing, you have to wonder. Especially amongst press which hitherto has oohed and ahed at every move MS ever made.
And we should stop having our thoughts on Vista based on comparison with 6 years old XP.
Why? To hide the fact that Vista adds nothing more, after 6 years? That is a mug’s game.
Most of people don’t upgrade OS anyway – they get the latest thing with a new computer. And Vista offers more for comparable price as XP.
Yeah! 15 Gigabytes more! And I’d hardly call four times the price “comparable”.
Were I in the market for a new computer — and I soon might be — I suppose I’d take a look at Vista, because it would come with any Windows PC I might buy. I won’t upgrade my current PC from XP to Vista, however, because I just don’t see the benefits being worth the price.
Another viable option is to build my own box, buying hardware that’s known to be supported by, and works well with, one of the GNU/Linux distros. I do run the Ubuntu GNU/Linux distro on another box in my little home network, but it’s not my primary computer. While I think all the various productivity apps I need are available for GNU/Linux, I haven’t actually verified this as yet.
this the packaging the install disk comes in! actually… it MAY be even better than OSX’s…. packaging!