Who's using Windows Vista? -- The Catch-All Vista / Microsoft Thread

I'm not sure if this belongs in "The Senate Floor" or not, but it doesn't quite seem to fit in the more relaxed / social forums, so this is where I've put it for now.

Who is using Windows Vista?

And who isn't?

What do you think of this latest version?

I am basically looking for all thoughts on Windows Vista, Windows and Microsoft in general. So pardon the question in the thread title; it's metonymic. I see we don't seem to have many (if any) PC / tech threads in here (which might be an indication I've erred in placing this thing here), and that seems a shame. We're all using computers to log in and post, right?

Anyway, I don't have Windows Vista at present. My current PC is really on the threshold of minimum system requirements -- but then, great as my PC is, I did build it in 2004. So I'm sticking with XP. But Microsoft's new OS does look and read as rather delicious: http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista.asp

I guess I thought this thread would be interesting not only to capture people's thoughts on Vista, but Microsoft as a whole. It's one of those companies -- in fact, THE company -- that polarises people the most. And I'm sure we have a range of opinions, not to mention our share of techheads, on this very forum. So, take it away.

 

Leopard>Vista.

That is all.

 

I haven't switched yet, but I think the thing with MS OS' is that you're better off giving it about a year before making the switch. It gives the research community and MS a year to iron out the inevitable bugs and glitches in the system.



How's it compare to XP? I'm hearing horror stories of a 25% slowdown in most applications under Vista.

E_S

 

I agree. I think that rule applies to most software. That and it's really expensive right now. Hence why I'm not even attempting to get CS3 when it comes out (if it comes out for windows).

 

I don't plan on buying it, although I think my computer might be able to handle it. I think most people will stick with XP till they have to buy a new computer. For my uses I don't really know what could be worth the 100 or so bucks. Right now all I do is surf the web, write papers, and play some games on my computer. I would much rather buy a decent graphics card than some new OS.

 

I'll be getting it in April when it comes to my school.

The university has a special deal where it will only cost $10-20

 

I've been wanting to build a new PC. I will get it then. Looks nice and if you have the hardware it runs nice. I have seen some PCs at BestBuy/CompUSA that I suppose barely pass the minimum reqiurments becouse they seemed slow. Others however seemed much faster. I haven't seen any of the benchmarks at any of the Tech sites though.

 

I'm not getting it any time soon.

I'm running XP currently, but my computer crashed a week ago. I lost everything. I had backup DVD's of all my important pics and documents, but a bunch of my stuff was lost.

The screen went blank after the Windows XP bar finished scrolling, and I tried everything to fix it.

It said I didn't have hard drives, even when I tried to reinstall Windows. The hard drives checked out OK on scan, on bootup and via file check. I have Raptor 10,000 RPM RAID drives. So, I had to use my Alienware Boot CDs - which didn't work at first - to start over.

Needless to say, I went the next day and bought a 300GB external drive for backing up data easily.

I was actually going to do the restore before that incident, but I wanted to save some of my stuff first.

 

In what areas are Vista an improvement? I don't know anything about it.

All I know is that the latest Mac comerical specifically mentions Vista, but I don't think I've actually seen a Microsoft ad. HAs Microsoft abandoned the days of the Rolling Stones and such, or did I just miss it this time around?

 

Well, it's an "improvement" because Microsoft says so.

The major differences between XP and Vista basically boil down to:

1) Aero, the new graphical interface (which requires a lot more power from both your processor and video card - my friends who have Vista recommend turning it off and using the old interface).
2) DirectX 10 (Which will not be available for XP, and is only supported by the NVidia 8800 series of video cards right now), which doesn't provide any benefits until DirectX 10-only games start coming out.
3) New DRM (Digital Rights/Restrictions Management) capabilities, which essentially can allow content producers to dictate what you can do with your hardware that you own. (This also includes TPM support which can block you from installing or using other OSes on the same machine.)

In other words, it boils down to a lot of eye candy and some additional restrictions on you. If you want eye candy, buy a Mac. Most of the eye candy is a rip off of OSX anyways. If you want restrictions, you are insane.

Oh, did I forget to mention the new "security"? Basically, it will repeatedly pop up with a message warning you that the program you are installing may not be safe (unless it is "certified" by Microsoft - for a modest fee, of course), which many beta testers complained was far too intrusive, with no way to disable the warnings for power users who already knew the risks.

Oh, yes, and there's also the confusion of 6 different versions of Vista, costing anywhere from $200 to $400.

In short, you likely don't need Vista. I recommend that you try a REAL OS, or the original user-friendly UNIX. You can buy a Mac Mini for only $200 more than Vista Ultimate will cost you, and you'll have a far better computer and OS for your money.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Just to go along with what KK said, the graphics effects are similar to what you'll find in OS X 10.4, yet Tiger's system requirements are far lower. A G3 iBook, circa 2001, is capable of running 10.4 (G3 processor support will finally be discontinued with 10.5, due out this spring). A Pentium 3 (the equivalent) could never possibly support Vista. In contrast to Vista's dizzying number of versions, the Mac OS comes out in a single version.

Vista is bloated and overdone.

 

QFT.

And, let me point out that I personally don't care for Macs, and I spent years counseling people to avoid them (until the advent of OSX). Personally, I think that they are overpriced for the hardware you get, and most of the software you can get something close to it for free (see also: Linux). I also detest their mice (especially the touchpads on laptops) having only one button (yes, I know you can use a two/three button mouse, but the built-in ones suck).

However, I will give credit where it is due. The latest versions of OSX offer more or less the same features available in Vista Ultimate (which costs $400), run on older/less capable hardware, and are simply better designed. The security model is tried-and-true, based on almost 40 years of UNIX development. While MS started revamping their security model with XP, they are only now adding security features that UNIX (including Linux and OSX) have had for decades. Arguably, Linux is still far superior (especially with the NSA's contribution of SELinux modules).

With OSX, however, Apple did the impossible. They took UNIX and made it user friendly. (Ubuntu is doing the same for Linux, and it is my primary desktop OS now at work for both my workstation and notebook.)

I challenge anyone to try out a LiveCD of Linux (you can download one from the REAL OS link in my previous post), boot up to it (it won't touch your Windows install) and give it a try. It is at least as easy to use as Windows, and in many ways is far easier. It is far more stable, and will run well on machines that most people would have thrown out years ago. (I've personally recovered computers from the dumpster and restored them by installing Linux.)

Kimball Kinnison

 

The problem with Linux (that I've heard, mind you) is that it eats up a lot more resources than Windows or OSX.

 

Thanks, guys.

But I have to interrupt: I think Windows Vista offers more than what's been stated -- at least according to the in-depth review I posted at the start:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista.asp

In addition to the new interface, which includes larger icons, a new sidebar (an analogue clock in the right-hand corner and news bulletins underneath), a "glass pane" look for all bars and windows, a "Flip3D" pseudo-3D layout for shifting / scrolling between active windows, and a live thumbnail preview for all running taskbar items, Windows Explorer has undergone a radical overhaul, there is a much more powerful and encompassing search feature, and overall security and stability are meant to have increased quite dramatically, making it the most solid iteration of Windows ever released. As for performance: It seems that you do need a fairly beefy CPU and at least 1Gb of RAM (preferably 2Gb for gaming, intensive applications, heavy multi-tasking etc), but you can get away with a fairly average graphics card (basically anything that's been released in the last 2-3 years).

Now, I don't wish to judge, especially as I asked for opinions, but it seems to me that this thing is being assassinated before it's even had a chance to prove itself. I looked on both amazon.com and amazon.co.uk and saw about a dozen reviews on each (for the "Home Premium" edition; the one to go for, by all accounts) and they were all harping on it, quite severely. Strangely, at least half of the reviews seemed to allude or directly refer to Apple Macintosh in some way -- as if they were planted there by supporters with the deliberate intent of bringing Microsoft down. This seems grossly unfair, and not only to Microsoft, but to the average consumer looking for honest appraisal of a new product.

So, by all means, continue to supply opinions, but please try and do so from an informed viewpoint. That's why I posted that hyperlink: I wanted to offer everyone the chance to get up to speed. True, it's only one review amongst hundreds (no doubt), but it strikes me as a particularly honest and thorough one. The author seems to be no fan of Microsoft, but also no enemy. They actually concede to having blasted Microsoft when they were reviewing / testing earlier builds of the OS, but when the finished product arrived, they were more or less won over, noting that Vista is both "evolutionary and revolutionary". Yet criticisms of one sort or another are still made quite consistently in the final review. It does seem that whatever Vista's faults, or whatever Microsoft's faults, since a company's faults are naturally reflected in their flagship title, Vista wins through as the best and most accomplished Windows conception to date.

Well ... I sound like I have shares in Microsoft or something. But I honestly have no affiliation with any company at all. I'm just looking for good perspective here.

 

Really?

Then why am I posting this from a fully-functional Linux desktop running on a 3-year-old PC (and I'm using the latest version of Ubuntu), with better performance than when this was a Windows PC? My coworker's machine (also running Linux, specifically Fedora) is 5 years old and runs with no problems.

At home, I have a 4-year-old machine that I am in the process of configuring as a Media Center for my living room - running Ubuntu (I just need to get an internal wireless card for it to finish off). You can run Linux on an old 486 today (although the usual minimum recommended by most distributions is a P2), with 32MB of RAM (most distributions recommend at least 128MB). You can use older video cards, without any significant problems (although the newer ones do go faster).

For comparison, the minimum requirements for Vista are an 800MHz processor (P3 or higher) and at least 512MB of RAM.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Well, I did say that I heard that it does that. Not that it actually does.

 

THat's basically all eye candy, and most of it is stuff that you can do in both OSX and Linux with far less as far as hardware goes.

That isn't saying much. Windows has never been all that secure or stable. Like I said, many of the security features that they are adding are things that UNIX has had for decades.

You can get away with a "fairly average graphics card" if you disable the same eye candy that you were just praising above. If you want to be able to use DirectX 10, you need a very high-end card (only one manufacturer has them on the market right now, and they go for a minimum of $330 right now (most are in the $500-700 range).

I have several friends who have been beta testing Vista for better than a year. Without exception, every single one of them has said that Vista doesn't really offer anything new beyond XP, except for eye candy and new hassles. The really exciting features (WinFS, Avalon, and others) were cut so that Vista could finally get out the door over 3 years late! XP was released in 2001, and Vista (originally called Longhorn) was expected in 2003.

Windows has always been a pretty crappy product. It has maintained its market dominance for two reasons only: smart business agreements (i.e. they got a fee for every PC sold, whether it had Windows on it or not) and leveraging the business environment (they've more or less crippled Office on the Mac, not to m

 

It's not all eye candy, but it can be broadly called that -- which is why I put it all after the "in addition to the new interface, which includes" clause. Visually speaking, it's long been known that OSX and Linux are ahead of Windows, no doubt. But I think these are significant additions when compared to previous Windows releases. As for hardware? Windows has always been a monster. Microsoft can be villified for these things, sure, but in terms of where Vista stands in relation to its earlier products, it seems like quite a step forward.

Well, you also lumped in my remark about Windows Explorer having undergone a radical overhaul, so that's a major improvement you're skipping over. But addressing the security/stability issue: Again, perhaps UNIX has been way ahead in this area, but compared to previous Windows releases, Vista seems a nice move forward. For what it's worth: Microsoft products, especially their modern operating systems, also get targeted more than any other software in the world, given how popular they are, and given how determined some nefarious individuals are to see them brought down.

DirectX 10 is a separate issue. It is there for future scalability (i.e. games). It doesn't bear any relation to the Windows Aero interface at all. I'm not sure what kind of drain the Aero interface has on existing hardware, but if the review I've linked to is anything to go on (and, given what I've said, I think it is), then it isn't as big as the myth suggests.

 

You are missing my point.

You keep trying to compare Vista just to previous versions of Windows. That's a pretty poor comparison to make, because Windows is not the only option out there. As I said before, both OSX and Linux are far superior OSes to Windows, in almost every measure.

You have really bought into the MS marketing, haven't you?

First of all, as for your Explorer improvement. Go take a look at both OSX and Linux, and you'll see the exact same search abilities have been around for decades. (Try looking at the utility "grep" for one example.)

MS products are also not more insecure because they are targeted more. They are targeted more because they are insecure. You want proof? Take a look at web servers. Do you know what the most common web server is? Apache (which runs on both UNIX/Linux and on Windows). Do you know what the web server with the most vulnerabilities is? IIS - the Microsoft server that comes with Windows. Similarly, IE has far more security vulnerabilities (and worse ones at that, not just the sheer number) than both Firefox and Opera combined.

Windows has always been crap at security, and you expect people to cheer that they are finally starting to get their act together? Windows 3.0 came out 17 years ago. Windows 95 was released 12 years ago. Experts have been warning about the security in Windows for that entire time. Again, this is where your comparison with previous versions is a very poor idea. Linux has had better security than Windows almost from the day it was started in 1991.

The recommended system requirements for Vista Premium would disagree with you. Note the graphics card requirements: 128MB card (minimum), something that was still considered an expensive component ($100+) as little as a year ago. Again, that's for the minimum Aero experience (for comparison, Windows 3.1 would run on a 286 with 1MB of RAM, but you couldn't do much wiht it.) In order to get any sort of decent performance, you need to disable Aero.

 

I could use XP for the next 20 years and be perfectly fine if the applications didn't eventually grow beyond it. The same goes for 2000, 95, and 3.1. I can do just about anything I want or need with XP, so there is really no need to upgrade to Vista until I am forced to several years from now when Half-Life 3 requires it.

 

Well, you can run Half-Life 2 under Linux with very little difficulty. By the time Half-Life 3 comes out, you'll probably be able to run that as well.

Linux will work for about 95% of everyone's computing needs. I've been using it almost exclusively in a Windows-oriented office, and have only needed to borrow a Windows machine three times in the past year (all three for a very specific program that won't work on Linux). I cannot recommend it enough for people who don't want to have to upgrade their machine every few years for the next version of Windows.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Did Microsoft kill your dog or something, KK? I've seen you spew some mean stuff before, but you're just acting way irrational towards Windows.

 

It's not irrational. I've had to work with it for better than a decade, and I've now worked with far superior OSes as well. It's an accurate assessment of Windows when compared to other OSes.

Quite simply, it's an inferior product and it has been leveraged over the years to do far more damage to the computer industry than benefit. I've had to help clean up after a single virus/worm infestation that caused several billion dollars worth of damage to the economy as a whole, because of Windows' poor security. Having studied security more and more in-depth, I have become even more aware of how harmful Windows is, in all its forms.

On my Linux machine at home, I regularly get scans for Windows vulnerabilities, sometimes for vulnerabilities that were patched years ago. Sometimes I get more than a hundred scans/intrusion attempts per day.

It's a piece of crap, and that is the honest truth.

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT: And it's not just the technical considerations. Microsoft has used is business leverage to actively block several efforts that would have revolutionized the computing industry. Look at what they did to Netscape, and what they are currently trying to do in Massachusetts over ODF (basically, Massachusetts wants to insist that all public documents be available in an open standard format, so that no one has to buy software from any specific vendor in order to access public documents.)

 

I didn't say I know better better than you. And due to your IGNORANCE of what an A-Level is (try looking it up), not to mention your FLAGRANT lack of respect for the education and work of others, even though I wasn't even attempting to compare my limited background with yours, and your extremely caustic, virulent attitude in general, I shall not be continuing with this discussion. Good day.

 

Here's a little hint: it's a bit difficult to search for "A-Level" through most search engines, because they treat a "-" as a space, and are not case sensitive. Therefore, you get all of the sites that say "a level" in addition to the ones that say "A-Level". If you are going to try and use your "A-Level" to show your understanding, you need to back up what it is. I'm not going to sit here and guess at which "A-Level" you are talking about.

What was the curriculum of this "A-Level in computing"? Was it along the lines of a University "Introduction to Computers" class (which usually focuses on web browsing and using Office), did it cover the basics of how an Operating System functions, did it involve any programming, or was it anything at all along those lines?

My degree program required me to do an in-depth study of Operating Systems, networks, and hardware design. I'd be more than happy to let you look over the requirements for my degree, as well as the planned course of study required for my Masters.

This thread appears to be your first foray into the Senate, so there is one thing that you really need to learn. If you make a statement or claim here, you need to be ready to back it up. Just telling someone else to go look something up isn't sufficient, nor is simply stating something as a "fact". I can back up every single claim I have made about Vista, showing the flaws in it in excruciating detail. Besides your one link, can you do the same for your position?

Kimball Kinnison