Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 03, 2016, 08:04:55 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!  (Read 23368 times)

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2007, 11:57:38 AM »
Another couple of interesting articles from PC Magazine:
    
Quote
Vista's Nine Most Annoying Features

This OS is good, but it's not perfect. Here's some stuff I wish Microsoft had done differently.

By Lance Ulanoff
Windows Vista

Microsoft Windows Vista is gonna be with us for a long time. It's a fine operating system, so that's good news. Still, riding shotgun with all of Vista's charms are its many little annoyances. Here are nine that stick in my craw.
http://www.pcmag.com...,1895,2088329,00.asp

and

Quote
The Vista Era Begins

It's got a few new features, but is it actually more functional than what we've had before? Such is the plight of the modern-day OS.   

By John C. Dvorak

http://www.pcmag.com...,1895,2088472,00.asp

sunsound

  • Participant
  • Joined in 2006
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2007, 07:45:01 AM »
 hope vista goes the way of millennium - the only people who use it are those that get lumbered with it when buying a new machine. like xp followed millennium, i hope that the NEXT ms operating system after vista will be actually worth buying/using.

Nudone...2000 followed ME..then along came XP using 2000's core.
Regardless...I'm not 'upgrading' ( ;D?) to Vista until SP2 YES Service Pack T W O comes out!  I was a beta tester and it reminded me of just how 'buggy' ME really was!!!
Oh..and Media Center Edition:  Just a comment....I may be wrong here, but I truly believe that BillyBoy is trying his best to get the PC into the consumer's living room!!  I'm an 'ordinary' user of an 'ordinary' PC.  I DO NOT want to tie my phone, TV, entertainment center, etc etc etc to my PC!!!  The only thing that even comes close to 'entertainment' that I do with my PC is record and edit my music collection...which is comprised mainly of the '60's - '70's 'Oldies' off vinyl.  Media Center edtion even put the hurt on me with THAT!!!  I would have to purchase a Mobo with Realtek AC97 to be able to edit (emulation) my music.  I know for a fact that AC97 is slowly dying and 99% of PC's sold today do not have an intergrated AC97 chipset onboard.  I'd say this is because of...you guessed it...'entertainment' in the living room!  PRESET effects that won't let you adjust the sounds that (in my opinion) people are too lazy to adjust themselves.
One more scary thought:  Since M$ OWNS your copy of XP...and the worst scenario is that not enuff people are 'upgrading' to F&&^% Vista...might they just drop support fo XP and FORCE everyone to 'upgrade'??  I honestly don't think that their 2014 date is a reality!!

nudone

  • Cody's Creator
  • Columnist
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,117
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2007, 09:46:17 AM »
sunsound, i have to admit i really can't remember which came first so i thought i would just check up.

according to http://en.wikipedia....of_Microsoft_Windows they put February 17, 2000 for Windows 2000 and September 14, 2000 for Windows Me on their timeline which means ME followed win2k. i wouldn't be surprised if they had different release dates in different parts of the world so maybe you are correct where you are.

at the time i just seem to remember thinking, why have microsoft released something like millennium when win2k was out - and better. i was kind of dismayed that people were rushing to get millennium when they could have gone for win2k - but then the hype machine wasn't telling them to get win2k.

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #28 on: February 09, 2007, 09:52:03 AM »
Win2k was actually supposed to be the death-blow to the sucky win9x line... but no, for whatever retarded reason. The only real reason I can think of is that, back then, people weren't as willing to buy a new computer just for an OS as they are today, and Microsoft wanted to milk those win9x customers a bit more that didn't have machines that could run Win2k.
- carpe noctem

nudone

  • Cody's Creator
  • Columnist
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,117
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2007, 10:05:56 AM »
was it that bad? i didn't realise win2k wouldn't run on many older machines. i've got it running on a pentium 2 laptop with 128meg which is kind of borderline annoying but pentium 3's seem okay. how all this nostalgia takes you back - incredible.

i can't remember what machines were like around win2k's release, was it still common to use 486's and pentiums?

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #30 on: February 09, 2007, 10:27:51 AM »
at the time i just seem to remember thinking, why have microsoft released something like millennium when win2k was out - and better. i was kind of dismayed that people were rushing to get millennium when they could have gone for win2k - but then the hype machine wasn't telling them to get win2k.

If you remember back to W2k release it clearly aimed at businesses and not at general users.

There were huge issues with lack of drivers for hardware that MS later addressed in WinXP which meant that a lot of people were put off and there was a lack of support for games too.

nudone

  • Cody's Creator
  • Columnist
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,117
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #31 on: February 09, 2007, 11:09:51 AM »
ah yes, you are right, Carol. i had forgotten that it was aimed at the business side.

broken85

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #32 on: February 09, 2007, 03:27:04 PM »
*ahem* And the kicker, a biased review from someone enjoying their Vista experience.... me!

I'm just catching up on this whole discussion now, so please forgive the length of my post. I know I'm probably gonna catch some flak for this, but I really like Vista overall, and I am rather enjoying using it. Don't get me wrong, I too have issues with some aspects of the OS, but I think regardless that it was the inevitable and logical next step for MS. They could have done some things differently without a doubt, and other choices were just downright wrong, but Windows has a HUGE user base and trying to please such a diverse and ever-expanding group of people doing god knows what with their software means they can no longer just focus on supporting new devices or adding new functionality, because there is more than that to compete with now, and simply more to live up to in this ever-evolving new generation of computing which is largely visual-based. I have good hardware, but, regardless, I do get better performance in Vista even with most default services enabled than I ever did with Windows XP x64 Edition. Booting up takes a surprisingly small amount of time, then before you know it the pleasant login screen fades into view. And, it sure doesn't hurt that the whole OS looks great too.

Regarding Vista's Art, Appearance, Accessibility, and Security
Windows had never been much for eye candy until Windows XP introduced themes. 6 years or so later, all those people that eagerly gobbled up Luna so long ago that have sat staring at it for all this time are hungry for more. Naturally their expectations rise with each passing year ("They must be doing SOMETHING big"), and today it's all too easy to find features and functionality in a Mac, or even with open source software. It's not enough to be the biggest or richest company anymore, because even groups of volunteers and medium-sized development teams can roll out new technology and support new features, and usually produce more frequent updates to boot. But can they capture the hearts of today's hip new-millennium youngsters and entrepreneurs by hiring on major production-quality art direction and then shoving it in everyone's faces with really expensive marketing? I think not. But MS can. How impressed would the average consumer be to walk into Best Buy and find a white box (or even a blue box with clouds, heh) labeled Windows Vista listing all the new specifications it supports or how the API is changing or technical features like ASPM? Probably not very; they'd probably still sell a lot of copies I'm sure, but from a marketing standpoint it would be better to tout lesser features that more people care about than better features that less people know about or know what to do with before they try it. Those that shell out a bit more for the Ultimate edition (which might be needed for some of the features I just listed, too) also get extra programs released by Microsoft periodically, which I suppose are essentially glorified power toys (and there's only a couple so far), but one cool thing is that they are checked for and included in Windows Updates.

Driver support is an issue, as it usually is in a new operating environment, but Microsoft sure as hell did better at getting companies to make their devices work on Vista than they did with XP x64. Many companies didn't even admit the release of x64, even after it was available in retail computers and as an OEM product. But this time around almost everything was installed before I even saw the desktop and even things that weren't included were detected and displayed properly and just needed drivers. Nvidia and ATI and many other major brands are already fully certified (and ATI's installer got a nice upgrade in the process, maybe as a result :-) ). Even Logitech released certified SetPoint software already whereas they took a number of months to release a production version for XP x64. In fact, the only thing I upgraded in my computer before installing Vista was my power supply (and that was because I simply didn't have enough wattage before either and just got a new job), and all of my hardware at least works right now. Creative is lagging a bit behind and is only offering beta drivers, and only of the Audio Console and drivers, not of their software, etc, but it still fully works and I'm using OpenAL in all my games that support it. I went through hell getting Steam to work; it turned out that while trying to troubleshoot the problem, when I enabled Compatibility Mode for XP SP2, I caused another problem which kept me from thinking the first problem was fixed and... well, it was a long night for sure. But it's fine now.

Maybe they went a little overboard with Aero and 3d acceleration in their interface, but it's only optional and they still offer a themeless mode that looks and acts quite a bit like previous versions of Windows, even a lot of properties windows look like they used to if you disable themes. Though I quickly took to Aero and now use it whenever I'm not playing games. I think graphics hardware is to a point now where any program has the potential of being "enhanced" with effects, filters, 3d models, etc. and it's just a question of if the enhancements make sense, and of course that they don't hinder performance. I have not noticed one bit of sluggishness since I got Vista (Ok, aside from the first time I tried installing Steam and it locked up the OS for about 15 minutes on-and-off before crashing to the familiar NT bluescreen) while using all effects, transparency, etc. Granted I have 2 GB of memory and a dual-core Athlon, but those are not uncommon specs today. I think that, too, was inevitable and it was just a matter of when during the maturing of graphics hardware and software would it not be stupid to use a significant chunk of resources to make the user's experience more pleasant. Well, I'd say that's when the technology is advanced enough to where it has plenty of resources to spare while doing almost any task. Well, I think that time is right now for most hardware... with DirectX 9 and the newer generations of video cards there have been huge strides in performance, quality, capacity, and a slew of cool new features, so I say why not at least give the user an option to utilize some of that smokin' chunk of juicy, waiting resources while browsing the web or checking email, or, you know, doing otherwise-non-graphically-intensive things. I mean, nobody's losing anything with all the new polish, because you can just turn it all off (very easily). But, if you think about it, technically they were to blame for not offering an option to turn them ON before. :huh:

And sure, all this over-hyped security and accessibility is laughable from the point of someone who knows what they're doing (For instance, because I never download or install suspicious files, what good are a bunch of extra system checks or monitors or pop-up confirmations?), but in an age where people hear about the latest worm going around on the evening news, can't you just picture the whiteboard in one of MS's development offices as they list hurdles to overcome in creating a stable operating environment for today's masses? Whether or not it's the fault of the Operating system, whenever some random virus or malicious program infects the computer of a non-tech-savvy consumer in today's media-saturated culture, I'm sure many of them immediately chalk it up to whatever they were running at the time (Windows). If MS is going to intensely market Vista's stability, then they have to somehow make it so that if someone's going to infect their machine by doing something stupid, they do it as a conscious decision, thus making it obvious (by force) that it's not the OS. Of course that's just one view. Personally, the first thing I did when I installed Vista was disable most of the security features (Windows Firewall, Windows Defender, IE's new enhanced security mode, etc.) After all, why put my software through all those extra intermediate services when I've got a hardware router/firewall and all my local software is valid and known clean anyway?

One thing I do actually really enjoy in Vista is the new layout, and the settings and navigation changes, and seeing all your negative reactions to it disheartens me a bit, because I feel that basically every feature I have had to search around for was simply because old versions of Windows worked differently... not because it's illogical or a bad decision by MS. On the contrary, I think MS spent a huge amount of time, effort, and money to simplify things and design things in a logical and "human" sort of way. Sure, you might not know how to quickly get to certain features at first because they were a simple icon in the control panel (however foreign those icons looked to non-technical users) or properties box and are now seemingly nested deeper in, meaning that a path has to be taken to get to it. But that's the thing: why not categorize and organize everything in a logical (not necessarily so to the person still used to the old way) and hierarchal way so that new users don't have to look at everything jumbled together or located in several different sections on the computer, and then provide more ways for both new and experienced users to find and utilize the options they already know they're looking for (for example, the new search/run bar in the start menu, where you can simply type the name of the program you want to run, sort of like a much less configurable or powerful version of FARR built right into the shell)? I look at it from the standpoint that they wanted to do things better rather than continue along the same path of previous versions even if that meant doing things differently and having to make users get used to something new. Some features are really quite convenient, such as the fact that a lot of old properties windows are now integrated into an explorer-type interface (and therefore have back/forward buttons, address bar, a sidebar to list history and related links, etc.)

Another thing I like is how aesthetically pleasing everything looks and feels, and how everything blends together and looks great without taking your attention away from what you're doing (especially using one of the dark themes, like the default one). No more little blocks inside progress bars, no more big explanations and unnecessary details about messages and other events unless chosen or requested, no more opening dialogs on top of dialogs on top of dialogs to get to a specific setting, etc. It's all truly simple, but you have to think about it logically and forget what you knew about finding those things in old versions. Because there probably is an easier way utilizing the search bar or a shorter path to take to get there than going to the control panel (since that's the logical all-inclusive main hub for settings, organizing it makes it actually useful to people who don't already know about the options in the control panel, even if there are actually a few more clicks involved) Even in the new Windows installation program they have actually taken out a lot of the unnecessary details, and they removed the whole user setup and other dialogs during installation and instead wait until the first logon (which makes an incredibly greater amount of sense than waiting for the user to set a bunch of non-essential options before the installer will even finish... what if the user doesn't want to sit there and wait and doesn't know about unattended installations?). I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems like they finally said "I don't care what we did in the past, let's just do it right." It takes change to make change, and I do not think Windows has ever been done completely right. But I think it's still moving in the right direction. Plus Microsoft has a lot of new opportunities than in years past to offer direct upgrades and enhancements over the Internet after the fact, and I think once they see the general response of consumers to certain positive and negative aspects, they'll have a good idea of what people want changed, are not willing to accept, or just how to do things better. Vista ventures out in a lot of directions that Microsoft hasn't really travelled in, at least nearly as much, in the past. Back to the visuals, for example... it's not the cleanest thing around, but I think I like the new look of Vista better than I like the look of any other theme in any other operating system I've ever tried.

They also included a lot more in-the-box than previous versions of Windows. Their new alt+tab options pretty much make my copy of TopDesk unnecessary. The new backup software (yes, the one that's not compatible with backups made in XP apparently) now has the ability to schedule and automate (though I still use and prefer Backup4all). The Task Manager now tells you the title of the process instead of just the process name, something most Task Manager replacements have been doing for a while and something MS should have done long ago to make people less confused when they have to end or investigate a process. Windows Update can now download the Recommended updates automatically (or manually) along with Priority ones via the Windows interface for those who don't like browsing to a website to get updates. The sidebar works well, rendering my old widgets engine (that I never used much anyway) completely useless. Their inclusion of Windows Defender is I'm sure a pretty big deal for non-technical consumers who need but wouldn't otherwise download protection from spyware and other malicious software. Windows Live Messenger is a lot cooler than old versions of MS's messenger, although I'm sticking with Trillian 3.1 Pro for now until Trillian Astra is released, which I hope is soon.

My point is that I think most users have the Windows version of highway hypnosis... we've been staring at the same thing for so long that we're entranced by it  :) and change is a bit frustrating, because we don't like feeling like novice users when we were experts just hours before and for years past. But I for one am quite happy that sticking with Windows doesn't mean having to look at beige dialogs from my childhood any longer. And as new settings and configurations need to find homes in the control panel, I know I won't need to scan past 30 or 40 icons to find it. I have always wanted a mac for its beauty and design, and because I was just sick of Windows, but no matter what its current flaws, I think Vista goes to show that Microsoft can actually move forward... that with their essentially limitless power in creating an operating system they actually did want (strive even) to give users a great experience. Because even if that's not the most important thing to focus on, it logically must be focused on at some point in any software's development cycle, because all of the huge features that you wanted to include originally have already been taken care of, and other operating systems are being released; how long did you think Microsoft was really going to drag their feet before delving in to try and capture more of the crowd? If you think about it, a lot of the "new" features that Vista comes with were just recently released in XP SP2 (probably to pave the way) or on Microsoft's website, so we kind of got a lot of the spoilers (IE7 (bleh), Windows Firewall, Windows Defender, Windows Media Player 11, the Security Center, etc.) before it was even released, making them mundane now, and making the other, less important but actually NEW features seem like the biggest deal, but the other features are there none-the-less and that's one less step I have to take to improve the computer's security after installing Windows.

One thing I just learned from this topic, however, was that the upgrade can't be installed on a clean drive, and that makes me feel cheated. I can live with it, because at the worst case I'll just need to waste a little time installing x64 first if I format my drive, but since I keep Windows and its direct relatives on the C drive by itself, I can still format my temp partitions, programs, games, and data drives and then just format C: from the Vista installer. But that does suck. Why would putting in my freaking x64 CD not be enough? I think I'll still have to try it for myself someday, maybe they released my particular Ultimate 64bit OEM Upgrade with the ability to verify the other disc. But I doubt it.... since it's an UPGRADE meant for system builders, Microsoft probably expects (or enforces) that it be installed over the old version since the OS has to come pre-installed on computers that use OEM software because of its license. But still... I did pay about $200 for a freakin' OEM upgrade, the least they could have done was include the ability to install directly to a new/wiped hard drive. Isn't having to call Microsoft for reactivation after re-installing a few times enough of a burden already? Oh well, I'm still having a good time exploring around Vista and tweaking my software in it. The translucent borders in Aero are truly beautiful to look at, especially when there are other windows or patterns underneath. Then, in a Zen-like fashion, if you maximize the window it is no longer translucent and you are seeing both the task bar and title bar in pure fashion.

OK, back to working on my Steam mod... if anyone actually reads this whole post (or even just part of it and therefore not this sentence anyway), let me know why you agree/disagree. I wonder if I'm really the only DC user who's having a blast in Vista? Until next time...
--
Ben M

broken85

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #33 on: February 09, 2007, 04:19:56 PM »
As a small testament to its ease of use, I could not find where to launch the sidebar from after you close it, so I tried typing 'sidebar' in the start menu and it immediately launched. Now that is an unexpected convenience. Though that still doesn't tell me where the shortcut is  :huh:
--
Ben M

nudone

  • Cody's Creator
  • Columnist
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,117
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #34 on: February 09, 2007, 04:29:22 PM »
firstly, broken85, i'd like to congratulate you on what may be the longest DC post ever (i'm sure someone can corroborate this) and i'll also congratulate myself for reading it all.

i was going to post earlier the question: has no one anything good to say about vista?

you've answered but for all your praise i'm still not tempted to run out and buy it. i'm half tempted but i think i can wait at least to the end of this year. if someone were to tell me that my programs would run quicker by a noticeable margin then i think i'd rush out straight away and hand my money over, but that doesn't sound realistic to me.

booting up faster sounds nice, and i think you have a very good point about the new organization of where things are in vista - there has always been too much clicking in windows trying to find the right thing, but then something so complex can't really pretend to be otherwise.

i'd assume that it might be a bit too soon to form an unbiased opinion of vista as the novelty factor is still present. when that wears off then a fair comparison can be made - or it may be just too late by then as vista will have brainwashed the user. i think that is what happened when i started using xp anyway. i was using 2k and i thought xp looked ridiculous, then i finally swapped and eventually thought 2k was too dull - but the truth is i could probably be using win2k right now and get everything done on my machine just as well - probably even quicker - maybe.

broken85

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #35 on: February 09, 2007, 05:14:23 PM »
I'm flattered, the possibility of having the longest post on DC, and only on my 54th post. Imagine the possibilities... *DC server quivers*

But nudone, I agree; An experienced user can, I'd guess, get things done probably almost equally as fast on any NT platform (well, from 5 on up) because it performs essentially every function that, to most people, an operating system should perform. Vista is most assuredly not an essential purchase, at least not at this point, for any application that I can think of. It's just sort of a "user experience makeover," or something along those lines, for SP2 with a bunch of extra software thrown in which already did have 3rd party alternatives available which most of us probably already have.

But it's the latest and greatest, and as much as I would like to deny falling for the hype, it does feel really shiny and new. I've been trying to tweak the hell out of XP for several years now to try and get just the right blend of barebones windows services and 3rd party replacement apps for all sorts of default programs, and I think it's kind of neat that Microsoft finally started just including a lot of the functionality into the operating system where it will probably run faster and definitely run cleaner than a 3rd party drop-in replacement. I'm all for installing the minimum amount of software necessary, or else Windows tends to slowly diminish in speed as more things are installed and uninstalled.

One thing I'm pissed about is that I just bought Tune-Up Utilities 2007 right when it came out, apparently without reading about the Vista compatibility statement in enough detail, so after a couple months of enjoying the best tools around I'm stuck until they release my "free upgrade" to Vista compatibility.  :'(  Oh well, I guess if Vista really needed tuning up already a lot of the stuff I said up there would become sort of comical... but Tune-Up's also still pretty shiny and new, and I miss it.
--
Ben M

kimmchii

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • **
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #36 on: February 09, 2007, 06:32:10 PM »
hope this is not a repost, Vista is slower compare to XP.

Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown

Quote
Conclusion: K.O. For Windows Vista?

Windows Vista clearly is not a great new performer when it comes to executing single applications at maximum speed. Although we only looked at the 32-bit version of Windows Vista Enterprise, we do not expect the 64-bit edition to be faster (at least not with 32-bit applications).

Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP. The synthetic benchmarks such as
If you find a good solution and become attached to it, the solution may become your next problem.
~Robert Anthony

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #37 on: February 09, 2007, 06:48:26 PM »
Quote from: Carol Haynes
If you remember back to W2k release it clearly aimed at businesses and not at general users.
...which was pretty unfortunate, they could've done away with 9x and moved to exclusively to NT codebase a lot earlier if they marketed it differently. AFAIK that was actually their plan, initially, but it got changed around.

Quote from: Carol Haynes
There were huge issues with lack of drivers for hardware that MS later addressed in WinXP which meant that a lot of people were put off and there was a lack of support for games too.
Drivers might have been a problem for people with quirky hardware, luckily wasn't an issue for me nor any of my friends. Lack of game support is an urban legend, most well-written stuff worked just fine (sure, there were problems with old DOS games, and p.o.s coding that relied on Win9x insecurities, but that wasn't a lot). I used to game a lot back then :)

Quote from: nudone
i can't remember what machines were like around win2k's release, was it still common to use 486's and pentiums?
I had an Athlon700, and win2k really flew well on that. 128meg was pushing it, 160 was fine, and 256 ran smooooooth. I'd say my machine was mid-end back then, and relatively low compared to what some of my friends had :)

I'm not going to drink the VISTA kool-aid anytime soon... but I guess I'll be forced to do a test install just to see how bad it really is. "But it's because of immature drivers!111!!!" - yeah, perhaps. And gobbling up resources for no good reason.
- carpe noctem

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #38 on: February 09, 2007, 07:26:05 PM »
I think you are right - nothing much of use has been added since W2000 - and certainly W2k was probably a bit leaner and faster.

Whilst I do appreciate that a lot of people will really like Vista it still seems to come down to the user interface eye candy at the end of the day and from what has been published it seems that if you use the Aero system there is a processing overhead which means you end up with a prettier but slower system. Personally I can live with a boring look if it does th job quickly so even if I were to upgrade to Vista I would be turning off all the gimmicks.

Think back to Windows XP release - after the initial interest lots of people were turning off themes and stopping all the extra unnecessary rubbish that appeared in the task manager. I would guess that once the initial "Ooo isn't that pretty" in Vista most people will prefer a faster less pretty machine on a day to day basis.

No one has really given me a sensible reason why anyone would want a pretty desktop that uses up massive amounts of system resources before the computer is actually asked to do something.

As for simplifying the layout of systems utilities and applets I have to say my impression of the Vista release candidate was that there was a lot of obfuscation of these applets - especially the ones that allow you do anything other than Vista's preferred settings. Have you for example tried to tweak wireless network settings - in RC1 it was like going round and round in ever decreasing and frustrating circles trying to find any of the controls.

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #39 on: February 09, 2007, 07:31:21 PM »
Quote from: Carol Haynes
There were huge issues with lack of drivers for hardware that MS later addressed in WinXP which meant that a lot of people were put off and there was a lack of support for games too.
Drivers might have been a problem for people with quirky hardware, luckily wasn't an issue for me nor any of my friends. Lack of game support is an urban legend, most well-written stuff worked just fine (sure, there were problems with old DOS games, and p.o.s coding that relied on Win9x insecurities, but that wasn't a lot). I used to game a lot back then :)

I suppose my experience of W2k was a bit coloured because a number of bits of hardware I had at the time effectively bit the dust because of lack of drivers. There were also a number of games companies (Chessmaster is the one that immediately springs to mind but their were others) that explicitly coded their installers so that the products would not install on Windows 2000 because it was seen as a business OS (even though they eventually installed on Windows XP).

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #40 on: February 09, 2007, 07:33:36 PM »
Carol: the kernel + security has supposedly been improved in Vista, which could have been worth something. However the kernel is bogged down by the DRM crap, and the security gets so much in your way that you'll want to disable it.

As for eye-candy, I'm the kind of person that turns it off (takes up way too much screen real estate), and prefers win2k style look, even without gradient titlebars. I do like drop-shadows though :]

No one has really given me a sensible reason why anyone would want a pretty desktop that uses up massive amounts of system resources before the computer is actually asked to do something. - and that's spot on the sugar. I don't want my operating system to get in my way, and I want to use my resources for the applications I actually run.

People will claim that "but Vista uses less resources, it has a hardware accelerated GUI!" - to which the answer is "yeah, and I've had that since win9x. Really."

Quote from: Carol Haynes
I suppose my experience of W2k was a bit coloured because a number of bits of hardware I had at the time effectively bit the dust because of lack of drivers. There were also a number of games companies (Chessmaster is the one that immediately springs to mind but their were others) that explicitly coded their installers so that the products would not install on Windows 2000 because it was seen as a business OS (even though they eventually installed on Windows XP).
Hm, specific checks against OS... funny, one of the Age Of Empires (iirc) does that too, just for winxp... turns out that there's NO reason for this, as some reversers showed by eliminating the check :). Issues with 9x vs. Win2k were things like sloppy coders ("width" vs. "pitch" of a screen surface), stupid coders (doing direct keyboard port hardware access, even though it wasn't necessary - the POD game), etc.

I don't doubt drivers were a problem, btw, but I didn't own any esoteric hardware back then :)
- carpe noctem
« Last Edit: February 09, 2007, 07:36:06 PM by f0dder »

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #41 on: February 09, 2007, 07:49:05 PM »
Quote
People will claim that "but Vista uses less resources, it has a hardware accelerated GUI!" - to which the answer is "yeah, and I've had that since win9x. Really."

Yep - but even if the GUI is hardware accelerated the hardware is spending time accelerating your GUI that could perhaps be better spent in applications. I suppose at the end of the day it depends what you use you computer for - if you just use the web, email and office type apps then it won't impact greatly to have a pretty GUI - but then why spend tons of dosh on a new OS at all?

I like to use software that is already pushing systems such as Photoshop, Vegas and audio processing software such as Cakewalk Sonar - I'd rather the OS was as minimal as possible because those apps already need as many resources as can be thrown at them and you are still having to wait for results even on fast hardware!

nudone

  • Cody's Creator
  • Columnist
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,117
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #42 on: February 10, 2007, 02:22:58 AM »
quick question: would putting win2k on a dual core machine instead of xp provide any noticeable performance difference?

f0dder

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,029
  • [Well, THAT escalated quickly!]
    • View Profile
    • f0dder's place
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #43 on: February 10, 2007, 05:05:11 AM »
quick question: would putting win2k on a dual core machine instead of xp provide any noticeable performance difference?
Dunno really - after turning off the fisherprice fluff and some services, I don't remember much of a speed difference even back on the Athlon700. XP did seem a bit more memory hungry though, but when I ugpraded to 256meg back then, everything seemed nifty.

Theoretically XP should even be a bit faster, because of some kernel changes (like supporting SYSCALL instead of the old interrupt-based system calls), but that's probably dwarfed compared to some of the other stuff added :)

I've actually thought about testing win2k on this machine, but never really gotten around to it.
- carpe noctem

broken85

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #44 on: February 11, 2007, 12:43:34 AM »
Vista, Stability, Case In Point

Sam & Max Episode 2 crashed once in a while when exiting in Windows XP and I'd have to reset my computer, even with Catalyst (ATI's display driver control software) set to automatically recover if the driver crashed (which I did not know was the case for sure). I'd get a BSOD and then after restarting see a dialog from Windows saying that "one of my drivers had stopped responding" or something along those lines. Non-specific is my point, I figured video, but wasn't sure.

Earlier today, I installed the new episode of Sam & Max. Sure enough, when I exited the game, the screen went blank for a couple seconds, and moments later I was back at the desktop in my native resolution and Vista put an icon in the system tray with a baloon announcing that my R300 display driver had crashed and has been restarted.

Not that it's amazing, and the next step I suppose would be making an interface that cannot send any commands which would crash the driver in the first place, or not certifying drivers that have the capacity to crash, but I guess that wouldn't leave many left over anyway. But for now I'm happy with Vista at least saving me some frustration.

Anyway, back to playing Indian Poker with the Toy Mafia....
--
Ben M

app103

  • That scary taskbar girl
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2006
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,666
    • View Profile
    • App's Apps
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #45 on: February 11, 2007, 06:27:51 AM »
(10) Yeah right - just like Windows Movie Maker in XP - that was a real big winner wasn't it? You can bet your life if they were about to include something half decent they would be back in court before you could even say anti-trust.

My first introduction to that hunk of wasted hard drive space was in WinME. I didn't try it till I had already been running ME for about 5 years.

I was offline for a week and on the edge of losing my mind when I tried it. I was looking through my start menu for things I had never tried before, in an effort to find something to amuse myself with. It provided about 5 minutes worth of amusement.

I have no idea why it exists...and I don't know anybody else that does either.

Josh

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Points: -5
  • Posts: 3,395
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #46 on: February 11, 2007, 06:30:30 AM »
I am running vista, as half of the people here who complain about it cannot say, and I have very few complaints. My biggest complaint is lack of game support however this is minor as its not the fault of microsoft that I chose to upgrade early before my game makers patched their games. So, I will not fault microsoft for that. Also, I have been able to play every bit of media I own, no drm problems, nothing. So again, people whining about DRM are blowing smoke because DRM only applies to media you obtain which HAS DRM. So yes, if you purchase DRM protected music, then you might have a different experience. I have purchased some DRM protected music in the past via napster and have not had any issues playing it back in vista, it works beautifully.

The interface is very easy on the eyes, very quick and responsive, and very easy to use. If you dont care about eye candy, turn off the stuff, its not very hard and the difference in CPU usage/memory usage is negligible.

Anyways, point in this post, dont complain about something you havent used because others have said things, thats like a 14 year old moving to linux or saying he is using linux because he wants to be cool. Think for yourself people. I did, I ignored the mass majority bad mouthing vista (most without cause) and I am very happy with it. My hat goes off to broken85 for his post, very intelligent and very well thought out. Some very good points made.

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #47 on: February 11, 2007, 07:18:53 AM »
I think the biggest issue people have talked about with DRM is that Vista deliberately degrades the quality of the output to avoid re-recording bit perfect copies it via the soundcard. There also seem to be issues with HD-DVD and BluRay too ... not that that will affect many people yet.

Lashiec

  • Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,374
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #48 on: February 12, 2007, 06:59:42 AM »
WOW! BIG post! Maybe you can transform it into a mini-review, complete with screenshots. I'm sure people will appreciate it.

As for the DRM issue, even if you don't have files with DRM now, you'll likely face problems in the future, due to the DRM-infected HD formats, the two ones Carol is talking about. That is, if you don't have a "fully-protected" system (fully-protected for the companies pushing this, not for the consumer) you'll enjoy reduced quality in sound and video, though I don't know if the reduced quality will be even lower than DVD... That's at least what I heard, correct me if I'm wrong (I wish I am wrong...)

Anyways, point in this post, don't complain about something you haven't used because others have said things, thats like a 14 year old moving to Linux or saying he is using Linux because he wants to be cool. Think for yourself people. I did, I ignored the mass majority bad mouthing vista (most without cause) and I am very happy with it. My hat goes off to broken85 for his post, very intelligent and very well thought out. Some very good points made.

No, no, you're TOTALLY AND PLAIN WRONG! Running Linux instead of Windows is not cool...

... but running Mac OS X instead of Windows it is ;D

Alas, ignoring the "Bad Vista" movement in some circles (including my college and others), you can always dual boot between the two options. The vendor lock-in in Vista is not as bad as the one they had in Office, as my outrageous experiences with it, and Zaine's recent review shows.

Carol Haynes

  • Waffles for England (patent pending)
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,986
    • View Profile
    • Dales Computer Services
    • Donate to Member
Re: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no!
« Reply #49 on: February 12, 2007, 08:34:49 AM »
Quote
Anyways, point in this post, dont complain about something you havent used because others have said things, thats like a 14 year old moving to linux or saying he is using linux because he wants to be cool. Think for yourself people. I did, I ignored the mass majority bad mouthing vista (most without cause) and I am very happy with it. My hat goes off to broken85 for his post, very intelligent and very well thought out. Some very good points made.

But I have played with it throughout the beta testing phase right up to, and including, RC1 - I even paid for the DVDs to spend time with it.

To me the issue is not whether people are happy with Vista but rather have you found something in Vista that is so compelling that makes the cost of upgrading becomes value for money. Just because it look pretty isn't a good enough reason for me and i haven't really seen any compelling evidence that there is anything above and beyond eye-candy that I want or need. I have however seen evidence that there are things I want to avoid like the plague!

If I bought a new computer I would expect Vista to be supplied and I would probably be reasonably unperturbed by it - but if someone was shifting equivalent boxes with remaindered stock of XP Pro at knock down prices it would be a no brainer purchase - I'd come home with the extra cash.