Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows Vista - Still Fresh After 19 Months?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the long-term-houseguest dept.

Windows 334

MyStuff writes "ZDNet blog Hardware 2.0 looks at the effect of having used Windows Vista for over 18 months. It Windows Vista the indispensable upgrade that Microsoft wants you to think it is? Writer Kingsley-Hughes says 'Having been using Vista for over 18 months I believe that it's a huge improvement over XP and even though I still use XP I find that I miss many of the features that Vista offers.' Just the same, he goes on, 'I wouldn't call any of the changes earth-shattering. When I'm using XP systems I miss some of the features but not so much that they push me to upgrade any faster.' He then goes on to give a feature-by-feature breakdown of all of the improvements Vista has over XP, and what long-term use of these features can net." A possibly useful guide for gamers or administrators thinking about upgrading sometime soon.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

19 Months? (3, Insightful)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18128802)

So, has he actually been able to run Windows for 19 months without reinstalling? That's amazing!

Re:19 Months? (5, Insightful)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129880)

He's a paid blogger. His list of features are less than stellar and hardly warrant the bluster he gives them.

It isn't uncommon to have someone gain familiarity with something, and then when switching feel a loss for some things or feel that the old way was better. Humans shun change.

I am entitled to 10 licenses of XP Pro, 10 XP Pro 64 bit and 10 Vista Business and I use Ubuntu on my main box with XP Pro on all the others. This isn't because of not wanting to change, it's because Vista sucks that bad. He doesn't even honestly talk about the draconian nightmarish DRM infections in Vista. No way am I going to relinquish my computer rights to Microsoft and the pathetic content providers. I want less of Microsoft entwined in my system; not more.

BTW, FYI, the WGA Notification program (remake, take-two) has been released and you all should be careful about going to Microsoft's site and accidentally installing it. It does prompt you to install, but it still is malware in the keenest form. The installer uses very deceptive and manipulative language by offering enhanced security when WGA Notification has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with security of any kind.

You've got to be kidding me... (5, Funny)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 7 years ago | (#18128804)

The BOFH has it right...

"You should go to Vista."

"So you like Vista?"

"Not really, no. I run a Vista simulator."

"Virtual Server?" the Boss asks.

"Nah, I just turned on all the flashy crap in XP, changed the background image, took some memory out of my box and clocked down the CPU. Then broke Media player. Works like a charm."

Re:You've got to be kidding me... (2, Interesting)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18128908)

"Nah, I just turned on all the flashy crap in XP, changed the background image, took some memory out of my box and clocked down the CPU. Then broke Media player. Works like a charm."

True. When my WinXP laptop stops being able to use software, the only upgrade I'll be doing is finally switching to either Linux, BSD, or a Mac at that point.

Re:You've got to be kidding me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18129168)

"When my WinXP laptop stops being able to use software..."

Pfsst, I'm still using my Manchester Mark I operating system. The only problem is keeping the hardware going. But otherwise it's Great! Keep the faith and you'll never need to change.

Re:You've got to be kidding me... (2, Interesting)

supaneko (1019638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129780)

Thank you. I will second you on this. I almost fell for the Vista upgrade "experience" but after hearing of the dreadful "security enhancements" added to Vista, I'll stick to XP.

I just hope that Apple doesn't go the way of Microsoft and implement DRM in their OS. Rumors lately seem to point to Apple wanting to that, despite Steve Jobs saying he's against DRM.

Re:You've got to be kidding me... (1)

AppahMan (992506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129736)

What about them, they're fresh! what bout their legs?! they dont need those!

On that note... (-1, Flamebait)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18128806)

I been using Mac OS X on a MacBook in half that time, I'll never go back to Windows XP as my main operating system. Heck, I even replaced Windows XP with Xubuntu on my Dell laptop. The only reason why I'm keeping one machine with a dual-boot of Windows XP and Windows Vista is for the games.

Re:On that note... (0, Troll)

jackharrer (972403) | more than 7 years ago | (#18128944)

I installed Mandriva on my old laptop. And despite having nice and all-so-cool laptop from company I prefer to use Linux.
Vista? I have all those fancy effects on Mandriva with compiz, plus it runs bloody good on old hardware. I tried Vista on new hardware and was quite disappointed. There's really nothing new and exciting. And paying so much cash for a privilege of having XP SP3 with built in WindowsBlinds? No thanks.

I'm right there with you... (1)

CasperIV (1013029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18128988)

I only have an XP harddrive so that I can run Visual Studio and play games... and World of Warcraft is the only game I don't have running in Linux (very well). There is no doubt that I would drop XP all together and just use my Ubuntu install if I could get WoW working better (which I will tackle again this weekend). The only reason I have Visual Studio is for work and don't work at home on the projects any more so this may not be a sticking point any longer. From a professional stand point, there are a few things Linux lacks that I really wish I could carry over. Those programs would be Photoshop (I don't like GIMP as much), Dreamweaver, Visual Studio (It's like an STD, you don't want it, but sometimes you can't get rid of it), and simple installs in general.

Re:I'm right there with you... (1)

friedmud (512466) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129416)

I have been a Cedega user for several years now... and they do WoW in Linux very well:

http://www.transgaming.com/ [transgaming.com]

It's only $15 to try it out for 3 months... if you are really interested in doing WoW in Linux I highly recommend it!

Friedmud

When was Vista launched? (5, Interesting)

MMaestro (585010) | more than 7 years ago | (#18128816)

Not counting the "beta" versions given to special corporations and colleges, I don't think its fair to judge Vista just yet. Asking if Windows Vista is still "fresh" after 19 months is like asking if the PS3 is still "fresh" after 12 months.

Re:When was Vista launched? (1)

EricTheMad (603880) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129182)

...is like asking if the PS3 is still "fresh" after 12 months.
Well, is it?

Re:When was Vista launched? (3, Funny)

CellBlock (856082) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129602)

In 12 months, most PS3s will still be in the boxes, so yes.

Quality questions (2, Funny)

wombatmobile (623057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18128850)

This from a professional reviewer after 19 months on the job:

"Is Vista more stable that XP? Hard to tell as I don't have a lot of problems with XP but I do feel that Vista is on the whole more robust."

On the whole, ZDNET adheres presents a robust standard of informative journalism. But there are exceptions.

Re:Quality questions (5, Insightful)

Livius (318358) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129540)

I would go farther and say that if this article is really the result of 19 months of research, then the reviewer is hiding something.

Every point made is vague and subjective, and completely meaningless. If Kingsley-Hughes thinks that the 'Start Menu' is an indicator of performance, I have to wonder if he even knows what an operating system is.

Windows Vista: It's still not a Mac.

A post from a few years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18128868)

About 3 years old, but still strangely appropriate...

Dan (to Eminem's "Stan") [slashdot.org]

I'd repost the entire thing here but the filters won't allow for the short line lengths.

Choice quote:

Dear Mister-I'm-Too-Good-To-Fix-Or-Patch-My-Bugs,
this 'll be the last e-mail I ever send your ass
It's been so long and Word's still bork -- I don't deserve it?
I gotta upgrade to write letters?
I almost switched down to Wordperfect!
So this is my ogg file I'm sending you, I hope you hear it.
I'm running firefox on the information superhighway
Hey Bill, I clicked on Bonzi Buddy, will it install in my drive?

Freshness... (0)

VitrosChemistryAnaly (616952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18128882)

I can see it now...

Young Girl: Mom, do you ever have that not-so-fresh feeling?
Mom: Only when I use Windows Vista.
Fade to black...
Brought to you by Ubuntu douche.

Correction (1)

LinuxIsRetarded (995083) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129284)

Young Girl: Mom, do you ever have that not-so-fresh feeling?
Mom: Only when I use Windows Vista.
Fade to black...
Brought to you by an Ubuntu douche.

Running Vista for 18 months eh? (-1, Flamebait)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 7 years ago | (#18128890)

So he upgraded to Tiger at launch too?

"possibly useful" (1)

FormOfActionBanana (966779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18128898)

Jeez, I didn't even think og RTFA with a freaking jumble of an abstract like that. It's maybe the worst I've seen as far as not making any sense.

OK, here is a revised FA summary (1)

FormOfActionBanana (966779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129134)

MyStuff writes

"Adrian Kingsley-Hughes of the ZDNet blog "Hardware 2.0" gives a lukewarm review [zdnet.com] of Windows Vista, having tried out various betas and final release over a period of over 19 months."
Biggest surprise? He's left the default Vista sounds (except for the startup sound [zdnet.com] ) in place.

Vista Accomplished Its One And Only Needed Task (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18128902)

Virus, malware, security is no longer a driving force away from Windows like it was pre XP SP2.

As a long time Mac and Linux user who despises Windows I can honestly say that I would be content to use Windows. Which is the complete opposite of two to three years ago when every single person I knew who ran Windows at home was under constant security and virus problems crippling their machines. Back then almost everyone was actively eyeing a Mac as their next machine.

Microsoft accomplished what they needed to do. So what if reviews or people on around the Net say such and such feature was copied or the UI isn't as refined as OS X. There is no longer a constant and compelling issue making users want to get the hell off the Windows platform. Shame on Microsoft for taking so damn long to get to this point but they have and that is the reality.

There will be no mass migration from Windows to OS X. But there will continue to be the constant trickle to Linux.

Re:Vista Accomplished Its One And Only Needed Task (1)

jackharrer (972403) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129020)

"There will be no mass migration from Windows to OS X. But there will continue to be the constant trickle to Linux."

That's true. MacOS has a fame of being a great system for home. And current advertising is only enforcing that feeling. But Linux on other side emerged from servers - that's what lots of great unwashed think. And they fear it because it's hard and complicated. But at the same time there's a lot of people who are curious. And hearing of governments switching to it makes the feeling even stronger.
It started to sip to peoples brains - that's the first step, we will see the outcome in incoming years...

Actually the ads only hurt Mac OSX (5, Insightful)

kinglink (195330) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129390)

The problem with the new mac ads is it doesn't show the OS, the system or anything useful. Even worse most of what they say is blantantly false. Yeah a Windows machine is a full work system and has no entertainment value, that's why 90 percent of computer games are still available on the PC. When mom and pa see the commercial and see "mac is fun, PC is work" they think about their system and realize it's not that much work. Adopting a mac would be more expensive to them, be more work and they don't want to spend 1000-2000 for a mid level system.

You can lie your ass off to a consumer but the minute they realize what you said isn't the whole truth you're screwed. What Mac has said in their last round of commercials has hurt it because people started smelling the BS, and because people looked into it and see the problems.

Hell their switch ads tried to bandwagon people on with famous faces. However looking back at them I can tell you. I only knew one or two of them. Bandwagoning commercials slowly faded away in the 90s. There's a reason for that, it stopped working so well... except in politics of course, when you're forced to choose if you're going to vote.

As for Linux the steady trickle I've seen going to Linux won't matter, it's still too small, and I still see people returning to windows, most people will continue to use XP. I'm all for using Linux as a back bone to coporate systems, but it's still not good enough to be a platform for business/work, nor one for productivity. People still don't want to do everything by hand, they want the comfort of Windows, and XP has given them a perfect surrounding. The minute you can't run program X from linux, it fails in people's minds. You can start by saying "well you can just run it under ...." Stop. Realize that people don't use dos based systems any more because they don't want to do that, running 1-2 programs just to get a third working isn't cool, and won't work for most people unless Microsoft disappears, and from the look of it Microsoft is going to be here to stay.

Re:Actually the ads only hurt Mac OSX (2, Insightful)

trimbo (127919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129718)

This is the best comment I've read in a while. Many people don't want a Mac because of exactly what ou describe.. it's more of a hassle and more money to change and buy all the new software than to just stick with what you've got. For most people, incrementally better solutions are just not worth the time. It's the significantly better solutions that make people take notice, but more on point integrated solutions are what businesses want.

That's exactly why your final points about Linux are great. I think all corporations would love to have the non-vendor locked solution of Linux with generic hardware; but, a really powerful integrated yet vendor-locked solution can usurp the hopes of independence because it often ends up actually being cheaper. Microsoft's offerings fit into this category. Office and Windows are only part of what businesses buy from Microsoft. They also buy into SQLServer, ASP.NET, .NET, IIS, Sharepoint, Exchange, their Business intelligence, etc. From 3rd parties, you can buy 10x that which integrates into all of these easily. People who have used any of these together know it all works pretty well together straight out of the box. When this gets compared to cobbling your own together on Linux, it will often lose. We can wax poetic about Linux all day long, but there's a free market out there that keeps deciding to buy from Microsoft for the very reasons mentioned.

I just don't see inroads being made against Microsoft until someone can come up with a platform that gives businesses the power of Windows and all of Microsoft's solutions for it for cheaper. On the home/consumer side, I don't really see it happening until a major new product comes along. MacOS X can't do it. It's arguably better for the average consumer, but only incrementally so.

Is that the best he can come up with? (5, Interesting)

ThePyro (645161) | more than 7 years ago | (#18128972)

From the article:

From an efficiency point of view, Vista beats XP hands down...It's the small things that make the difference - the improved Start Menu...

Maybe it's just me, but I hardly use the Start Menu. I assign keyboard shortcuts to all my commonly used applications. I might go digging around in the Start Menu a couple times a week, but's hardly a reason to change operating systems.

...improved search...

Is that really a huge efficiency boost? I use Windows Search even less than I use the Start Menu. It's very rare that I don't know where to find something on my own machine. Does anyone else use the Search function that often? For what are you typically searching?

the larger, more detailed icons (which are a real eye saver if you run at screen resolutions of 1280 x 1024 and above)

Yikes! Large icons are the first thing I usually turn off. What a waste of screen space. Once again, is this really a huge efficiency boost?

So in conclusion, "beats XP hands down" translates to two features I'd never use, and larger icons that I'll want to turn off. Think I'll wait a bit...

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (1)

Eideewt (603267) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129038)

You might use the search more if it were useful. I'm running Linux (so I don't use Windows search much either), but I use the "slocate" command to search a database for file names all the time. When I want to know if I even have the file I'm looking for it's much easier to to an instant search than it would be to look in all the likely places.

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (0)

PlatinumRiver (846268) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129536)

Yep. Windows XP search is entirely useless, especially if you try to locate files containing certain strings. XP rarely finds them so in XP I have to use 3rd party tools for searches. I don't have this problem in Linux.

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (5, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129114)

I assign keyboard shortcuts to all my commonly used applications. I might go digging around in the Start Menu a couple times a week, but's hardly a reason to change operating systems.... Is that really a huge efficiency boost? I use Windows Search even less than I use the Start Menu. It's very rare that I don't know where to find something on my own machine. Does anyone else use the Search function that often? For what are you typically searching?

This was almost exactly my attitude when I started using Mac OS X 10.4. Spotlight indexed searching, well okay, but I don't really do that. I now use spotlight every day for both finding some document and quickly starting applications. In less than a second, using only the keyboard, I can do a search for some string and open that PDF file I was reading about the MPLS adoption in Europe. I don't need to know if it was in my e-mail attachment inbox, saved to the desktop, or if I was a good boy and actually filed it with my research materials. In less time than that I can search for and open some program I rarely use but recall the name of. Imagine if your search was globally accessible from the keyboard and faster than going to the start menu and selecting something for items you haven't made shortcuts for. For those items you did make shortcuts for, there is no need. Photoshop is "cmd-space+p+h+enter" and it is open.

Now my experiences with Vista RC1 were somewhat less encouraging, but I'd have a hard time giving up my indexed search at this point and I imagine in a year or two when MS has ironed most of the bugs out, you may find yourself feeling the same way. I would seriously try using these features for a while and see what your opinion is then, rather than pre-judging them.

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129118)

The start menu is a mixed bag. The start menu itself has an improved layout, but the new programs submenu really blows. It took me a while to get used to it. Basically, instead of expanding menus like the XP Programs menu, think a compact tree view shoved into the area of the existing start menu. Its a lot harder to navigate.

Luckily, I don't use the programs menu that much. Most of my programs are accessed through the top-level start menu shortcuts.

I will add that I disagree with the article that Vista increases efficiency. Its flashy, and my GUI is a bit more responsive, but in terms of efficiency its not much better, if at all, than XP. At least in my 2 months of using it.

Waiting is a good idea, Vista isn't worth dropping $200 or so dollars for.

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (1, Informative)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129358)

The start menu is a mixed bag. The start menu itself has an improved layout, but the new programs submenu really blows. It took me a while to get used to it. Basically, instead of expanding menus like the XP Programs menu, think a compact tree view shoved into the area of the existing start menu. Its a lot harder to navigate.

According to the article, though, it's just because you don't know how to use a mousewheel.

Frankly, I think that's an idiotic response... The Start menu is better, except that now it takes a left click to open it, a move to get to programs, a mousewheel scroll to get to the program you want, another click to select it - and that's supposed to be efficient? Quicksilver, or even Spotlight, on a Mac is easier - hit the key (or mouse button) to open it, start typing application name, within 3 or 4 letters, you got it, hit return. On my laptop, I never even move my hands off the keys.

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129414)

I've never used Mac Spotlight, but from what you're describing it sounds like something that Vista has too. The new start menu has a little box where you can type application names and such. I barely ever used it though, so I don't know how well it works. Like I said, I mostly used shortcuts.

And I agree that saying that I didn't like the new programs menu because I don't know how to use a mousewheel is pretty idiotic.

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (1)

Kuciwalker (891651) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129770)

That's in Vista. Windows Search. Windows-"word"-enter starts Word, for example.

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (1)

uhlume (597871) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129776)

Mousewheel? Mousewheel?

Try this: Press [Windows Key] -> (Start Menu Opens) -> Type first few characters of program/document, hit [Enter] to open. By default, at least, this is even faster and easier than Spotlight/Quicksilver's two-key invocation. Worst-case scenario, you have to scroll down a couple of lines (with arrow keys or *shudder* mousewheel) to select between multiple hits (just like Spotlight/Quicksilver).

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (1)

Xanius (955737) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129596)

Well, if XP is any indicator, the price of vista isn't going to drop over the course of it being supported. Xp professional, after the release of vista, is still $300. Home is still $200. Microsoft doesn't follow the general rules of business. Every other product on the market drops in price as either a new version comes out, or it gets paid off through purchases, but M$ keeps charging full price and ends up making probably a minimum of 10x more than they would if there were (real,in the sense of widely used) competition and they had to lower the price eventually.

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18129864)

Microsoft doesn't follow the general rules of business. Every other product on the market drops in price as either a new version comes out, or it gets paid off through purchases[...]


  When most companies make a new version, they try to eliminate the storage costs for the old inventory without throwing it away, so the prices have to come down so they can get rid of it.

  Microsoft does the majority of its sales in bundling. The rest is basically the cost of cheap CDs. Thus, the cost of old inventory is close to zero, thus they don't have to drop its price.

Desktoplinux.com thinks Mepis is better than both. (0, Troll)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129166)

Vista is not ready and may never be due to DRM nonsense. Check out this review of both Mepis and Vista [slashdot.org] . DRM breaks what hardware they managed to get drivers working for.

Re:Desktoplinux.com thinks Mepis is better than bo (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129274)

Oh come on. A site called desktoplinux says that Linux is better? Wow, color me surprised.

That was sarcasm by the way. Don't you think theres a problem citing a Linux site as fact when it concerns a Microsoft OS?

I never really ran into DRM problems. But then again, I don't buy or play DRM media.

Re:Desktoplinux.com thinks Mepis is better than bo (1)

eraser.cpp (711313) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129386)

Why bother with facts when you can write vague and frightening nonsense, say "DRM" a couple times, and link to a slanted research article?

Re:Desktoplinux.com thinks Mepis is better than bo (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18129434)

What can I say? They learned from the best - Microsoft.

Why don't you read the article and tell me? (0, Troll)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129574)

Don't you think theres a problem citing a Linux site as fact when it concerns a Microsoft OS?

No, the author is honest. Don't project M$ "get the facts" type reports onto the free software world where there's little incentive to do more than report what you see. The results surprised the author as much as anyone else.

Crying, "It's not fair, they are all out to get Microsoft" and sticking your head in the sand is not going to teach you anything new.

Re:Why don't you read the article and tell me? (1)

gordgekko (574109) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129796)

Well thank God for you twitter, you certainly have always been unbiased and even keeled when it comes to discussions about Microsoft...oh wait, M$.

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (1)

Kuciwalker (891651) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129252)

The indexed search kicks ass. No one ever used search in XP because it was useless, but in Vista it's easier and faster to just hit Windows and then type the approximate file name than the actually open explorer, click through to the folder, etc. etc. On the other hand, I used to do the same thing with Google Desktop search in XP, so it's not a huge reason to upgrade.

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129548)

It's great for people who can't run Google Desktop Search because of corporate policy. (Why Google had to get a perfectly useful tool, then start mining data from it... ugh!)

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18129330)

...improved search...

>Is that really a huge efficiency boost? I use Windows Search even less than I use the Start Menu.

I haven't seen Vista. I wrote my own search program from scratch originally intended for CD/DVD catalog. It can handle all kinds of offline files and LAN. My friends that switched over to it over Window's search.

On a 1.3GHz Celeron PC, my program can do boolean search in a C like syntax doing 600,000 files under 0.7 sec without having to index. That was a stress test, most systems has an order of magnitude less files. All this in 105K .exe standalone. ;)

I found myself use it a lot on the hard drive especially when I try to remember if I had downloaded certain anime/manga. It also comes in very handy when I want to sort my downloading directory. Just do a search and open its parent directory, then drag & drop the new file in.

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (2, Interesting)

archen (447353) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129394)

> the larger, more detailed icons (which are a real eye saver if you run at screen resolutions of 1280 x 1024 and above)

Yikes! Large icons are the first thing I usually turn off. What a waste of screen space. Once again, is this really a huge efficiency boost?


Actually I find the icons are making vista harder to use. If you look at the control panel in "classic mode", it looks like a jumbled together collage of shiny garbage. Many of the system program icons should utilize either extremely simple representations of things (the old "my computer" icon for instance), or general symbols. When you look at traffic signs, you don't see an actual picture of a windy road, you see a squiggly line representing one. Another examle is the quickstart bar where I have windows explorer, show the desktop, and the view all windows 3d effect thing. The icons all look like shiny blue screens with just a hint of something different that has hardly any correlation to what does (or it's way to small in the icon to really see without significant study).

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129456)

I agree with the control panel assessment. I can't point out what exactly it is with the new icons, but I always seem to get this reaction where I have trouble finding the right icon. Part of it is that they made more settings immediately accessable from the control panel, without having to dig through sub menus.

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18129396)

I use search for digging thru log files at work pretty regularly. I often need to find a specific string in a folder full of thousands of text files. It's easiest to just hit ctrl-F and use the built-in search. For all other searching I use Google Desktop. I rarely search my local machine though, primarily I'm searching for email and Outlooks search function mostly sucks. I never search my home machine. I think the only time I did was when I misplaced a few ISOs I wanted to delete to clean up some disk space, I did a search by file size and found them easily enough.

On my Mac I use Spotlight fairly regularly. Mostly because it's primarily my wife's machine and she likes to "organize" things so they aren't where I remember and it's quicker to search than to browse thru the directory structure looking for the damn file with our recipes in it or the xmas gift list or whatever it is I need to dig up.

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18129496)

> Does anyone else use the Search function that often? For what are you typically searching?

As someone who downloads lots and lots (and lots) from the interwebs, and assigns data to one of my six partitions based upon wherever there's free space, I use the Search function quite a lot (basically, I either use my torrent client as an explorer replacement, or I use Search).

Search in XP blows. I have about 900GB of storage attached to this machine, and it generally finds anything I need in fifteen to sixty seconds. A properly indexed search function would be of great use to me (and probably anyone else who keeps a sloppy hard drive structure).

However, I've always meant to investigate other search programs - are there any FOSS search programs for XP that keep a nice index of files and can provide Finder-like speeds?

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (1)

!eopard (981784) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129622)

Maybe it's just me, but I hardly use the Start Menu. I assign keyboard shortcuts to all my commonly used applications. I might go digging around in the Start Menu a couple times a week, but's hardly a reason to change operating systems.
I have an autohide, always on top toolbar at the top of my screen. Much faster than the start menu, which is used for uncommon program accesses. Once you get used to it, it's a lot faster too. I have the same at work, with the toolbar located on my personal shared drive. Setup on all PC's I login to, it makes it a hell of a lot quicker to get productive on a new PC. XP search is painful, I use it as little as possible. Just opening it gives me the shits, after becoming used to NT4's search box.

Used to have similar toolbars on the sides also, but once you hit 3 monitors it's too far to get to them, even with on-the-fly selectable mouse acceleration.

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (1)

aslate (675607) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129740)

Actually, the search is really useful, especially the start-menu builtin search.

I always used Winkey-R and typed in the location of my program, damned fast and really simple, although regular users wouldn't do that. Now i hit winkey, type in the program name (firefox) and up comes a search list, at the top Firefox is there, below it will be any files with the word firefox in the name from my profile and then the file-text search.

I agree the actual menu sucks compared to the old one in many ways, but i've almost never needed to navigate the menu itself, all the programs are in the builtin (instant) search and therefore i don't need to remember "Did i shove it in Accessories, who MADE the program or is it under the program name? Oh wait, Firefox comes under Mozilla Firefox...".

Worst. Upgrade. Ever. (4, Insightful)

Roadkills-R-Us (122219) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129748)

You left out nicer fonts!

But almost everything he said could have as easily been done in XP- better fonts, faster startup, improved search... all this could have just as easily been in SP2, or at least SP3, if MS hadn't been expending all that money and energy on Vista.

Here's my favorite quote: ``Some programs still have problems with Vista but the blame for this really falls on the vendor and not Microsoft.''

I wonder how he arrives at that? If the program already existed, and Vista didn't, and MS wrote Vista with backward compatibility in mind (did they?) it's hardly the app vendor's fault. But even if MS didn't care about backward compatibility, that's not the app vendor's fault. They can't write programs to an OS that hasn't been written! So this was just a goofy statement.

On the flip side, an employee here just bought a laptop with Vista on it. Another admin has spent at least a day working on the stupid thing over the past week or so, just trying to get it to work properly on a network that has been supporting several versions of Windows as well as OSX, Linux and Solaris for years. Granted, he hasn't used Vista before, but he knows Microsoft OSes prior to Vista just fine. (One of the things that pisses me off about MS is that with every release you have to learn where things are all over again.)

And there is NO excuse for scrolling something like a start menu using standard sized fonts. None. Ever. Morons.

Re:Is that the best he can come up with? (1)

Lobais (743851) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129838)

Is that really a huge efficiency boost? I use Windows Search even less than I use the Start Menu. It's very rare that I don't know where to find something on my own machine. Does anyone else use the Search function that often? For what are you typically searching?
Personally I use searching a lot.
I use it when I have to find something I heard somewhere, and don't remember if it was on the web, on the chat or in some email.
I use it when I need to run some application I don't use often, and only remember a single word of the programs' description.
Some times I even use it for searching Google, if I don't have a web browser open.

I don't know about you guys? (2, Insightful)

codepunk (167897) | more than 7 years ago | (#18128984)

I read that article and no where in it did I see any evidence of what is so earth shattering about it. He did mention stability but only a gut feel that even that may be better than xp.

So what was MS working on all those years?

Re:I don't know about you guys? (1)

rizzo420 (136707) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129056)

i take it you didn't RTFA. in the article he says there's nothing earth shattering, but on a whole, it's better than XP.

Re:I don't know about you guys? (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129348)

Better than XP how, he did not say a darn thing about what where or why it is a improvement to xp.

Re:I don't know about you guys? (3, Insightful)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129292)

I agree. Nothing there to make me run out and buy Vista. The things he mentioned as "improvements" are not things that bother me, I rarely use the Start Menu at all, I don't use sounds as I find them annoying, and the XP fonts look fine to me, I don't do graphics work and my speed is just fine! So, with nothing really cool added and with all the bugs, the embedded DRM crap, the 9 levels of OK boxes to click to change settings and strange quirkly things that software packages that run fine on XP do on Vista, I'll stay away. Plus I don't feel like springing for new hardware.

Re:I don't know about you guys? (1)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129316)

As TFA and the even the /. summary note, there isn't anything Earth-shattering about it. It's an overall improvement, but not a very big one.

Most of the stuff MS worked on for the last 10 years didn't make it into the final release. They spent the better part of the decade hyping the innovation that'd be coming anyday and then realised all the innovative stuff wouldn't work, so they took all that out and spent the last two years making UAC dialog boxes.

A lot of sore people. (0, Troll)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129474)

So what was MS working on all those years?

DRM, funded by all those suckers who bought into code assurance plans thinking they would get an upgrade to Vista ... three or four years ago. Vista outright obsoletes half of the world's computers and won't work well on 94% of them. Promising upgrades to newer software for hardware three years ago has to be one of the biggest scams ever. The magnitude of that scam will only be fully apparent as people realize how bad the DRM is.

Re:I don't know about you guys? (1)

slughead (592713) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129484)

So what was MS working on all those years?

Dead ends and evasion of blind corners.

They took out everything that was going to be revolutionary (or at least interesting) about Longhorn and were afraid to try anything new for fear it would push back the already embarrassing release date or further alienating developers.

Acceptance (0, Troll)

2020steve (999594) | more than 7 years ago | (#18128994)

Either you drink the kool-aid or die of dehydration.

Re:Acceptance (1)

AJWM (19027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129886)

+1 insightful.

And if I get the chance I'll metamod whoever modded that as troll as "unfair".

Parent post was: Either you drink the kool-aid or die of dehydration.

That's exactly the dilemma most people/companies with a Microsoft dependency find themselves in. Try buying a new (non-Mac) PC without Vista on it, for example.

The Bizaaro World (3, Interesting)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 7 years ago | (#18128998)

"even though I still use XP I find that I miss many of the features that Vista offers."

I find this comment quite bizaare. After using Vista for nearly 2 months, my experience is exactly the opposite. I find Vista frustrating because many features from XP have been removed or changed in ways that make them less useful. There are no major problems with Vista, but dozens of minor annoyances. Each one by itself is no big deal, but together they add up to a major step backward.

Re:The Bizaaro World (2, Insightful)

rizzo420 (136707) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129110)

your 2 months pales compared to his 19 months. you have to let yourself become acquainted with the new locations for things. my guess is you didn't reach that point. i will say that the first time i saw vista to support someone's issue, i couldn't find where something as simple as add/remove programs was, but then i did. i'm making the switch next week and i'm sure it'll hurt my productivity a bit at first, but once i'm used to it, i'll be good.

Impressive grammar (0, Troll)

VampireByte (447578) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129012)

"It Windows Vista the indispensable upgrade that Microsoft wants you to think it is?"

Did this pass the Word grammar checker?

Does this pass as journalism? (1)

folstaff (853243) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129018)

Unimpressive, the writer's logic is hard to follow and in the end the article is useless.

For better try: http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3118_7-6695272-1.html ?tag=cnetfd.mt/ [cnet.com]

Or for gamers: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2096940 ,00.asp/ [extremetech.com]

They at least don't sound like they just dropped the M$ pom-poms to type their articles.

Re:Does this pass as journalism? (1)

Rycross (836649) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129314)

I find it ironic that someone complaining about objectivity would spell MS as M$...

Re:Does this pass as journalism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18129710)

first link is good, it's amazing how godawful slow Vista is. There is no way hardcore gamers will switch to Vista until they have to when it means sacrificing all of that performance.

the second link is broken.

I haven't upgraded everything to XP yet (5, Interesting)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129070)

I don't get it.

Between work and home I have two Win2000 boxes and two XP boxes (and a Redhat as well). I remember still running NT when XP was introduced.

Unless you have an application that can't be run on an older system, and by then you usually need a newer computer anyway, is upgrading really worth the hassle? A workstation for me becomes like an old pet. You're used to it. You know how what its quirks are.

Personally, I've never felt a compelling reason to upgrade. I like shiny toys as well as the next person, but I have never upgraded a Windows OS in my life.

Re:I haven't upgraded everything to XP yet (2, Funny)

mkoko (974106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129162)

Appearantly you've never had the misfortune of owning a Windows ME install. Lucky...

Re:I haven't upgraded everything to XP yet (1)

drew (2081) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129418)

I upgraded a '95 box to 2k back around 2001 or so. (The computer was actually only a year or so old, but I never ran '98, and I was a little slow to warm up to 2k) I'm sure I've 'upgraded' other times as well, although I've never really thought about it as such - I used to wipe and reload boxes pretty regularly, so there were probably times that the OS I reloaded was not the same as the one that I wiped. The '95 -> 2k was just the only time that I did it specifically for the reason of getting a new version of Windows.

Re:I haven't upgraded everything to XP yet (1)

kabocox (199019) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129510)

I don't get it.
Between work and home I have two Win2000 boxes and two XP boxes (and a Redhat as well). I remember still running NT when XP was introduced.


You know the silly feature in WinXP that made me want to upgrade my Win2000 box and some Win98 boxes to it? The built-in MS Picture and Fax viewer. Oh, sure I could download and install free ware image apps, and of course I have photoshop for evey image editing crap. But for those times just sitting down at some one else's PC and needing a builtin app. It was either IE or that MS Picture and Fax viewer to view images in WinXP. That's my most loved feature. The stability, system restore, and windows updates where you don't have to restart after every single freaking downloaded patch were just additional bonuses.

From what I've read linked off of slashdot, Vista really needs 2 GB of RAM to be happy and is really happy with 4 GB RAM. Only our newests machines have 2 GB of RAM. We have no plans of moving to vista and as the general computer guy, my box would have to one of the first to trickled down replaced. I have no idea what little feature is in Vista that I'll like and want everywhere. From the article, the only thing that sounds useful is the start menu intelligently using a scroll wheel. Doesn't sound like a big deal does it. But its the little things like that, which makes the entire OS progress. Slashdot forgets the human/user side of the coin very often. It's the little things that matter. The only thing about Vista that would make it really annoying is all those security dialogs. I'd really like to see how many of them my mom encounters playing AOL flash games. It's not the slashdot user that Vista is aimmed at. It's the Walmart customer that MS is really hoping to aim at. Did they hit that target? It sounds like it. My Vista advice that I've been handing out to non techies is try to wait 6 months; if you get a new computer with plans for vista, make sure it comes with vista preinstalled do not order a computer with XP that has a Vista upgrade vocher. I've not even played around with Vista; I'm just giving advice to keep them from rushing out and buying a PC that won't do what they want it to do. When I start hearing on slashdot that the $500-700 walmart PCs are running Vista o.k. to comfortablly then I'll recommend folks to buy it. I've heard a very wide range of opinions, but it seems to be make sure you have the RAM and CPU to handle vista. I don't think that's at the $500-700 price point, yet.

Re:I haven't upgraded everything to XP yet (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129600)

For me, it was that Windows XP Pro included Remote Desktop for free. That's a killer feature... for Linux and OS X you have to install VNC which doesn't work that well and isn't secure by default (and impossible to make secure easily.)

That Microsoft released a Mac OS X client for Remote Desktop is just frosting on the cake.

Re:I haven't upgraded everything to XP yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18129512)

Keep in mind that many on Slashdot are gamers and upgrade PCs or PC parts regularly. That almost requires a newer OS. Office 2007 also doesn't work on Win2k, and with the new document format that could start to be an issue for many.

Am I missing something? (4, Interesting)

ADRA (37398) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129104)

Looks like I'll stick it out with Win2k, nothing interesting here =)

Reboots: I reboot my 2k media PC once a month maybe

GUI: I still can't find a person that can point out why XP was so much better than 2000. If you can convince me, please do. There just aren't any productivity advances that I can see. The article author pointed out the vast productivity benefits from the start menu, but honestly, if you're spending more than 1% of your time in the start menu you're not being productive period.

I think everyone who upgrades and claims it substantially better are under self-hypnosis. The 'beautiful graphics' are deluding you into believing the OS is so much better. If Microsoft had updated their driver compatibility layer like they did in XP, I don't think there'd be a single justification to ever buy XP. But like I said, I dare the community to say differently. Give me a reason to enter graphics country!

Price: How much for media center edition? Ouch.

Re:Am I missing something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18129240)

One reason I can't go back to Windows 2000 is a reason you mentioned: Media Center. Whatever bullshit Microsoft's pulled with most of its products, including Vista, Media Center Edition 2005 is the first TV playback program I've used on any operating system that Just Works. It's mindless, it's fast, it's mostly consistent, and it's free (anyone running XP can trick MCE 2005 into installing provided you have the CDs, see here [thegreenbutton.com] ).

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129242)

Zactly. My 2 main machines at home are running w2k, with Office 97 chugging along just peachy. They play the games I like(WoW), run Visual Studio just fine, and generally just 'work'.


If it gets the job done, why the heck am I looking at upgrading damn near everything just to run a new version of an OS that was mostly written back in the w2k release?


As for the XP to w2k comparison, my only guess would be slightly better driver support for more consumer periphials(sp?), but if that difference is probably something like 95% to 98% who cares?


Re:Am I missing something? (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129272)

Oh and...wait for it...


No activation bullsh!t for swapping out a measly hard drive!


Re:Am I missing something? (1)

SpaceballsTheUserNam (941138) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129428)

bwahhaahahahhahaah, seriously, LO mf L but for real, i want your body.

Re:Am I missing something? (1, Insightful)

SEMW (967629) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129648)

Price: How much for media center edition? Ouch.
$119 [amazon.com] . Hardly "ouch".

The article author pointed out the vast productivity benefits from the start menu, but honestly, if you're spending more than 1% of your time in the start menu you're not being productive period.
I think the thing with Vista's start menu is that it has accessed to the full indexed search of your system, and so acts kindof like Spotlight on a Mac -- i.e. you can get to any application, control panel applet, email, document, file, folder, IE favourite/history, etc. by pressing the windows key and typing a few letters from it. I can see how that could be a productivity boost.

Robust and Robust (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18129136)

Disclaimer: I'm not native english, so excuse my grammar/spelling.

I don't get this statement from page 2:

Crashes and lockups on Vista are few and far between.
...and in the next paragraph...

Is Vista more stable that XP? Hard to tell as I don't have a lot of problems with XP but I do feel that Vista is on the whole more robust.


"Few and far between" means that he's experienced more than one lockup on his system since Vista was officially released. He does not have a lot of problems but frequently have crashes? It is quite sad to think that the author of the article is so used to having lockups/BSOD that he feels it is a normal thing to experience. Is this what every day operation will be like for most people?

As a comparison I will (I don't want to but I feel I need to) have to compare with Linux; Lockups happen when you screw up the system yourself and is not every day life. For example, when Ubuntu Dapper (6.06) was just released I installed it and it was stable using the stock Xorg drivers. Everything just worked and the system was stable. This on a stock install. Install 3rd party drivers and new features was introduced but made the system unstable. My own fault since the stock drivers worked fine. I went back to the official drivers again and had a stable OS to work with.

The Vista drivers are signed and is officially approved by MS so they should be stable and not crash the system.

Ok, I don't really know what point I am making with this post I just need to get this out. The mentality in the article just got to me. The system is either Robust or it isn't. I would not call an OS that lock up "Robust" (or "more robust than XP"). I would call it "not as fragile as XP" maybe...

Anyway, I liked the article. It seemed honest and brought up both positive and negative things. The author say he miss some features from Vista when he uses XP but does not say what features he miss. He say there are bugs but does not list a single one that he's encountered. I wished the author would have spent another page with details, otherwise I enjoyed reading it. /Jowi

Sorry, but useless (1)

GlitchyBits (1066840) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129198)

No offence, but the whole article is based on utterly subjective opinions on both systems. No figures, benchmarks or whatever that might even give a clue that what is said is true.


Maybe i didnt got the point of the article, but it doesn't give any information that would make me consider using XP rather than Vista or Vista rather than XP. If it presented results of some kind of benchmark running on XP and Vista over a year and half, that would be totally different. But even in this case, Vista has changed so much till the beta (at least i hope so), that it would still be meaningless to compare it with windows XP.


Re:Sorry, but useless (1)

NatteringNabob (829042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129356)

That was more or less my take as well; Vista is a huge improvement over XP, but in 19 months and 3 pages, he isn't able to come up with any real tangible reasons why, and certainly nothing quantifiable. One of the things he mentions as a plus, huge icons, is a minus for anybody that isn't running dual head, high res monitors like the author is. While most of the slashdot crowd probably have a similar set up, odds are the majority of current XP users do not. You also have to wonder about the objectivity of a journalist that states that if your favorite app doesn't run on Vista, it is the application vendors fault, not the fault of Vista. But binary compatibility with existing applications is the number one feature that keeps users on Windows in the first place. If the app you need doesn't run on Vista, it isn't a minor inconvenience, it is a show stopper.

Re:Sorry, but useless (1)

SEMW (967629) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129768)

No offence, but the whole article is based on utterly subjective opinions on both systems.
Isn't that kinda the whole point of a review? To get the reviewers opinion on whatever it is they're reviewing?

If you just want raw benchmark figures, Tomshardware has hundreds, go nuts. But I don't know of any benchmark that can objectively measure ease of use.

Film at 11 (1)

Bo'Bob'O (95398) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129268)

Some small features an incremental improvement over previous versions. Will MS ever stop innovating?

ReadyBoost (1)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129296)

It sounds like this 'feature' just moves the page file to a flash device. Am I missing something? This guy makes it sounds like it's some kind of big deal.

Re:ReadyBoost (1)

SEMW (967629) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129874)

It sounds like this 'feature' just moves the page file to a flash device. Am I missing something?
Yes. Moving the page file to a flash drive would be a really bad idea; for two reasons. One, a flash drive has pretty rubbish sustained read speads, because it's limited by the speed of the USB connection. A well performing swap file needs to have good sustained read speeds; that's something hard drives aren't bad for. Two, flash drives have a limited lifespan; lots of writes (which you would have with a page file), would wear it out pretty quickly. That's also something hard drives are pretty good at.

The point of Readyboost, AFAICT, is that it doesn't actually replace the swap file, it just acts as a cache for it; so in theory you get the best of both worlds: practically instantaneous seek times for quick access of small files from the flash drives, without any of the disadvantages of just keeping the swap on a flash drive.

I've been working at Vista for 12 months... (1)

the_greywolf (311406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129312)

... Oh, you mean Windows Vista, not Vista [vista.com] ?

That must be why I was so confused about this new GUI stuff - our backend GUI hasn't changed in 4 years!

This jives with my own experience (4, Interesting)

Kuciwalker (891651) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129438)

I've been running Vista for a few weeks now and, on the whole, it's similar to XP but noticeably better. Most of the enhancements I've noticed are little things, mostly interface improvements, that combined just make the system easier to use. A particular example: in XP if you select a file and then click again on the name (or hit F2) it selects the filename and lets you edit it. What's slightly irritating is that it selects the file name *and* extension. In Vista it only highlights the name, so when I'm renaming several .doc files it ends up saving a LOT of clicks or keystrokes. As the auther mentioned, the larger icons are nice for high-resolution screens. Meh. The power management center is a lot better and simpler to use - I unplug my laptop and in two clicks I'm in low power mode. The per-application audio mixer is handy. Indexed search is nice, but you can get the same thing in XP with Google Desktop. Lots and lots of little things that really improve the UI taken together.

Complaints:

For some reason they fucked up the defragmenter and now it's just a big "defrag my hard drive now!" button with no progress indicator or something to show how fragmented your disk is (this *really* pisses me off). Startup/shutdown time is better, but hibernate/sleep is a problem - when I come out of them it doesn't remember I have a second monitor, and I have to reboot to get it back. Thus, they're mostly pointless.

Surprisingly it runs a little faster on my notebook than XP did, I assume because of the caching (2GB RAM) and Aero offloading stuff to the GPU.

All in all, I wouldn't want to go back, but I don't know it's worth the hassle of upgrading for everyone. Especially since not all software works quite right yet. YMMV.

Re:This jives with my own experience (1)

W2k (540424) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129752)

Use the command prompt defragger. The GUI one is just there for the n00bs who can't figure out cmd.

Re:This jives with my own experience (2, Informative)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129820)

There is a command line for the full defragmenter, I don't recall it but a quick google should pull it up. Vista is much better than XP, however, I returned to XP due to the horrible driver support from creative and nvidia. I figure it will take them at least a year to get their act together, so I will upgrade then.

I don't know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18129444)

Is roadkill still fresh after 19 months?

Funny (2)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129450)

The more I read about Vista the happier I am with Win 2000. It has a handful of features that were somewhat improved but at a cost of it being slower than XP and a security system that depends on you manually authorizing things that you shouldn't have to. I have a couple of PCs and one Mac and the only time the mac bugs me is when I'm installing something or doing a monthly update. Try rebooting a windows machine and you are prompted to update something every time. Yes a lot of things can be turned off if you go digging but with my XP machine when I turned off some of the annoying stuff I got even more prompts. The biggest hesitation I have with Vista is the Microsoft fanatics aren't finding a lot of good to say about it. Leopard got a lot of flack from the PC community but personally I can't wait. I'll give it a month to make sure the upgrades are going smoothly but I can't wait to upgrade. That's a massive difference between the two systems. Most people in the PC community look at upgrading to Vista like they were looking at a snake and they aren't sure if it's poisonous or not. The Mac community can't wait for Leopard. Like I say the best sales promotion Mac Leopard has ever gotten was Vista. The difference between the two is fighting with the OS in Vista and not noticing the OS in Leopard. I use computers for the software not to get my rocks off configuring OSs. The more Microsoft "fixes" Windows the more interested in Mac I get. Funny how Mac is never trying to fix their security. I leave a Mac logged onto the net for days or weeks at a time without one problem. No need for firewalls and antivirus software. Macs aren't completely virus free but they tend to be more like urban legends. I've heard of them but I've never seen one.

Vista's Hidden Charms (4, Funny)

Bellum Aeternus (891584) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129460)

One often over looked "benefit" of Vista is that it's Control Panel is completely redesigned and made much more confusing. So confusing in fact that my mother (after having upgraded and I don't know why) is unable to break her PC anymore by messing with the Control Panel. Under XP she knew where things were and would adjust them. Now she can't find anything, so I get fewer calls.

On the flip side of the coin, the poor guys in my IT department are also lost as to where the hell the controls they need have gone in the new Control Panel.

For better information (1)

eraser.cpp (711313) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129470)

As is typical for tech related queries Wikipedia is chock full of information on what changed with Windows Vista. I recommend people take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windo ws_Vista [wikipedia.org] if you're interested.

MS knows best (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18129534)

Try selecting more than 15 txt or image files in explorer and opening them at once. MS knows what's best for you.

vista sucks the last good os from ms was dos 5,0 (1)

ralph1 (900228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129726)

Yeah i want to buy more ram and a dvd player for a new laptop to use vista no thanks.

Not very enlightening. (1)

Cycline3 (678496) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129754)

After all the media that has been published on Vista and comparing it to XP - this article seems to offer very little. For someone who has used this 19 months,I was unimpressed with the writing and the lack of detail. Very little true insight was offered. Also, quotes like, 'Some programs still have problems with Vista but the blame for this really falls on the vendor and not Microsoft' really, really turned me off. It's nonsense. Who says it's not Microsoft's fault? Some of the largest software vendors in the world have products missing from the Vista compatible list, are they all bad programmers? Part of the problem is Microsoft. This really seems like teen rant - I've had it and used it forever (and you haven't) and it's better than what you've got. There are better Vista reviews/articles out there.

everyone with hands (1)

milimetric (840694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18129778)

thinks they can have a blog and thinks their opinion is worthwhile or insightful.

This has to be one of the worst reviews I've ever seen. Can anyone enlighten me to this guy's credentials and why he's an authority on the subject? This sentence I loved: "What I can say quite honestly is that there seem to be far fewer bugs in Vista then there were in XP when it was released". This is not a review, this is a poorly worded opinion. No facts, no bug reports, not even specific personal experiences, just like a whimsical sentence. Or the ever duplicitous: "If your PC is having a hard time running XP, it's not a good idea to upgrade. If your PC is running XP but it's sluggish then steer clear of Vista."

Ridiculous, we're slumping into a mediocre state of communication. Slashdot editors, don't indulge this crap, lazy language and fluffy blogs should be smitten into the lowest depths of the internet not pushed to the front page.

Here's a quick review of Vista that I believe conveys more than TFA. Windows 2003 is much faster on hardware with less than 4GB ram based on my own simple tests (browsing the hard drive, the network neighborhood, performing compilations, program startup times, etc.). Windows Vista has poor compatibility with any weird hardware. For example, my bluetooth drivers didn't work on my dell d820, the fingerprint device was impossible for me to configure. Games (like warcraft 3) and certain software installed but would not function. I had none of these problems with Windows 2003 on the same laptop (yes, that's a weird OS to run on a laptop). I was almost disappointed with the dual core machine until I put a slimmer OS on it and realized it was just the software making it slow.

Interface. It adds Windows Key + Tab 3d window switching. Let me tell you why this is horrible compared to OS X's expose or Linux' similar features. One reason is you can't see the window content while you're switching between tabs. The second is because it seems to completely consume all the graphics power of a GeForce 7400!! How can this simple feature that I can run in Linux on my Ti 4200 64MB graphics card be so much slower on such a much faster machine? Poor quality code and optimization is my only explanation. No thought was given to performance, this OS simply requires next-next gen hardware and will suck on anything else. Vista seems to have no other interface improvements. The close window, maximize and minimize window buttons on the window bar are smaller and harder to click. There is less space for window content based on the new window bar layout. The transparent window title bars add nothing to the experience and have been available in Linux for a few years.

Security. Every time you want to do something that takes administrative access Vista throws two popup boxes in your face. One to elevate your access to Admin and one to make sure you initiated the action. 1.) This is not security, this is blaming the user if he makes a mistake after being driven batty by this annoying feature. 2.) There should be only one popup box that handles both of these questions, user interface design 101. Disable the popups and you lose the whole "security"

Please, correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above. But don't speak up if you have never used other operating systems or if you're just shouting opinion.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?