Author Topic: WIndows Vista Ultimate ... worth upgrading ... CNET say no! (Read 52,453 times)

Carol Haynes · « **on:** January 26, 2007, 10:13 AM »

Interesting article and video intro from CNET at

http://reviews.cnet.com/Windows_Vista_Ultimate/4505-3672_7-32013603.html?tag=nl.e501

I have to say what they conclude seems pretty much like common sense to me - Vista isn't finished and lots of functions won't work properly until SP1 is released for it late 2007. Add to that there seems to be little added over Windows XP other than DX10 and a surface gloss.

Given the potential performance hit on existing hardware (or the cost of upgrading hardware) is it worth upgrading? Personally I agree with CNET and I won't be any time soon.

What do you think ...

[edited to attach image for blogging]

nudone · « **Reply #1 on:** January 26, 2007, 10:50 AM »

i wanted to upgrade to get that nice black user interface but now i'm using the 'royal - noir' scheme by miscrosoft on my xp system - so i've absolutely no reason to use vista now. yep, that's it, i can't see any other reason to use vista at the moment.

i 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.

Ruffnekk · « **Reply #2 on:** January 26, 2007, 10:54 AM »

I get the feeling Microsoft is putting too much time into integrating multimedia and eye candy into their OS. I already concluded some weeks ago that it wasn't worth the effort to upgrade now. Looking at this list of 10 reasons to upgrade to Windows Vista I could not be convinced.

Maybe in 2008 when it has matured a bit more I will review my opinion, but for now I'm happy [pun]as can be[/pun] with Windows XP Pro.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #3 on:** January 26, 2007, 11:32 AM »

Let's have a look at the 10 reasons list ...

1. Higher Level of Safety and Security
2. Improved Responsiveness
3. Improved Performance
4. Reliability
5. Enhanced Accessibility
6. The New User Interface, better organization and ease of use
7. The Windows Aero Interface
8. Easier Search and Organization
9. Improvements in the Networking Technology
10. Windows Movie Maker and Windows DVD Maker

I seem to remember that 1-5 were touted as the reason for upgrading to Windows XP - has Windows XP suddenly expired in all these areas. The facts remained that (1) will be compromised in Vista in exactly the same way it already is in XP and require endless patches, (2) & (3) proved illusory in Windows XP and certainly from beta/RC trials Vista seems to decrease in these areas rather than increase! (4) Windows XP was the 'most reliable OS ever' - has it suddenly had a change of heart ?

(6) & (7) yeah right - resource hogs both and almost everyone that has tried Vista agrees that the it certainly isn't better organised and easier to use - generally you are on a real mission to find any of the settings in Vista and when you do find the one you are looking for you seem to have to look for other bits and pieces hidden in obscure and unrelated corners (wireless networking that doesn't install during start up is a case in point).

(9) maybe true (don't know) but if your network already works properly in XP why would this be a deciding factor?

(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.

The other reasons apparently touted are IE 7 and WMP 11 - well whoopdy-do you can already have these in XP so why do you need Vista ?

Ruffnekk · « **Reply #4 on:** January 26, 2007, 11:36 AM »

You could not have put *my thoughts* on screen any better than that Carol. Exactly why I decided Vista is a bit of a hoax.

nudone · « **Reply #5 on:** January 26, 2007, 11:43 AM »

just the usual hype isn't it.

i've read that networking is a nightmare from an expert that tried, but the way vista works so that it doesn't crash the whole system when a game crashes sounded good - only useful if you play games that crash or lock the screen up, of course.

jgpaiva · « **Reply #6 on:** January 26, 2007, 11:46 AM »

The one i find most interesting is "3. Improved Performance". When you have an OS that takes half the system resources for itself, how can it improve performance?
Do they mean that incompressing a 4gb rar file will be faster in vista then it is on windows?
Or maybe they only say that because vista will make you have to upgrade your hardware and thus make your computer faster?
Also, don't forget about "8. Easier Search and Organization". That's easy to improve, as there's NO search or organization in XP. Also, most of us already use programs for that that most probably are better then the functions in vista.

I'm finding this most disapointing. Truth is that more and more people are asking me the "why windows vs mac OS" and i'm starting to find that there are no acceptable answers. It's sad to see so much good stuff in mac's OSs and nothing new in windows. One would expect that with so much time and money they'd come up with something really fantastic.
I'm very sorry to say i think the next generation's OS might very well be made by apple.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #7 on:** January 26, 2007, 11:47 AM »

Er ... wasn't WinXP the ultimate OS that prevented the whole system crashing

?

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #8 on:** January 26, 2007, 11:52 AM »

Quote from: jgpaiva on January 26, 2007, 11:46 AM

I'm very sorry to say i think the next generation's OS might very well be made by apple.

The trouble is that if Steve Jobs had any real sense of vision he would have spotted this long ago. There is now no real barrier to porting MacOS to PC hardware (since the new Macs basically use PC hardware these days anyway). If MacOS was ported and sold as a viable alternative to Windows on existing hardware it would benefit everyone - not least Apple who would expand their OS market share exponentially.

While Jobs and co. are committed to style beyond substance and the perennial aim to sell basic hardware at ridiculously inflated prices MS will maintain its dominance.

nudone · « **Reply #9 on:** January 26, 2007, 11:56 AM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on January 26, 2007, 11:47 AM

Er ... wasn't WinXP the ultimate OS that prevented the whole system crashing ?

very true. looks like i've already started to believe the hype.

jgpaiva · « **Reply #10 on:** January 26, 2007, 12:12 PM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on January 26, 2007, 11:52 AM

If MacOS was ported and sold as a viable alternative to Windows on existing hardware it would benefit everyone - not least Apple who would expand their OS market share exponentially.

Yes, i think that mac OS has a giant potential, but just as you said,

Quote from: Carol Haynes on January 26, 2007, 11:52 AM

While Jobs and co. are committed to style beyond substance and the perennial aim to sell basic hardware at ridiculously inflated prices MS will maintain its dominance.

I think the worst problem is the hardware.
I'm not sure you're right about "style beyond substance". They do have a giant marketing machine, and they probably put as much money into style developing as they put in software developing. BUT, mac OS does have amazing features (being the one i'm most interested that thing that farr resembles of, can't remember the name) that i think MS should copy. I mean.. Why did they copy that widgets thing and they didn't copy the virtual desktops thing? Or the finder?
I think there's a lot wrong with apple, but they do put money into developing new concepts. MS only looks interested in copying the concepts that the other operating systems developed and not trying anything new.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #11 on:** January 26, 2007, 12:49 PM »

I didn't mean MacOS is style beyond substance - it is the hardware that annoys me. They spend huge amounts of money designing stuff for people with more money than sense just because it looks pretty but it is distinctly lacking in functionality. The iPod is a cases in point where you can't even change the battery without paying Apple £60/$100 to 'service' the item. What the 'yuppies' who buy this stuff don't realise is that the stuff inside the box is the same as stuff in other machines by other manufacturers but Apple charge twice as much for the box they ship it in and deliberately restrict interoperability to force them to use Apple's overpriced services (such as iTunes - even though the iPod hardware is third party and supports WMA but it has been disabled).

Ruffnekk · « **Reply #12 on:** January 26, 2007, 01:53 PM »

Yesterday I heard news about Dutch authorities filing a complaint against Apple because of the iPod and the iTunes music. They say it is unfair for someone to buy music from Apple online and not being able to play it on any other music player than an iPod. They demand that music downloaded from the Apple site is playable on every MP3 music player. They also demand Apple to correct this for every song they ever sold if the customer wants it so.

cranioscopical · « **Reply #13 on:** January 26, 2007, 02:57 PM »

Like it or not I suspect most of us will be using VISTA in a few years time, if only because of marketing. How many new-hardware purchasers will specify that they do not want VISTA? How long before developers specify VISTA as a requirement for new versions of software?

If "all" it takes to milk good performance from VISTA is more power and resources I'm sure that will happen. My view on this has changed. Once I demanded tiny, tight code which crammed quintessential functionality into the fewest bytes. Realistically, that was because, back then, we hadn't the intellectual and financial resources to deploy plenty of RAM, huge storage, and the processing power to manage it. We had to wring ultimate performance from every byte. Is it realistic even to expect that an entire modern OS be written in, say, hand-tuned assembly language?

That said, I shan't rush into VISTA. XP was the first Windows of which I wan't an early adopter. I waited a couple of years before moving to it. (Looking back, I think that wait saved me a lot of trouble.) Also, I want to see how much of the software I use needs upgrading to run under VISTA. The total cost of an acceptable OS upgrade can be surprisingly high these days and I want a good return from that investment.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #14 on:** January 26, 2007, 03:17 PM »

Quote from: Ruffnekk on January 26, 2007, 01:53 PM

Yesterday I heard news about Dutch authorities filing a complaint against Apple because of the iPod and the iTunes music. They say it is unfair for someone to buy music from Apple online and not being able to play it on any other music player than an iPod. They demand that music downloaded from the Apple site is playable on every MP3 music player. They also demand Apple to correct this for every song they ever sold if the customer wants it so.

There have been Europe wide legal challenges on market issues such as monopoly and unfair trade against Apple - and growing calls in the US. Personally I think as a matter of principle Apple will withdraw the iTunes shop from Europe before they comply with such issues. The only effective way to do what the Dutch are suggesting is if they use MS's WMA DRM in tandem with their own DRM formats (there is no way they will swap to WMA fully and the music companies won't allow MP3 distribution).

Given that you can't download iTunes tracks more than once when you buy them in Apple's format I can't see Apply allowing users access to a different format retrospectively even if they could be persuaded to make other formats available.

The other issue is that Apple don't want to allow other companies access to the Apple DRM so that they can supply iPod compatible music. Apple say it is for security reasons but it is really down to simple economics - they have 80% of the MP3 player market and that 80% are currently tied to the iTunes store if they want to buy legitimate music (except for a few MP3 stores such as emusic). If Apple won't licence the use of their DRM will MS license them to use the MS DRM system ?

f0dder · « **Reply #15 on:** January 26, 2007, 03:56 PM »

Let's look at Carol's top 10 list....

#1: which gets so much in your way that you turn it off, and basically end at XP-or-worse security.
#2 & #3: hahaha, as if. The base OS is going to use more CPU, RAM and GPU power for doing basically the same. Friend of mine that does graphics programming said stuff ran noticably slower on Vista than on XP (~360fps vs ~430fps or rougly 20% - but okay, immature drivers etc).
#4: we'll have to see about that. MS did a lot of code rewriting - fresh new bugs.
#5: *shrug*
#6: even more useless eye-candy, and a shell that I'm going to replace with BlackBox anyway. Yay.
#7: Aero, which I'll turn off immediately for performance reasons. And that transparancy crap doesn't reduce clutter as they claim.
#8: *shrug* - thankfully they dropped WinFS. One size doesn't fit all, anyway, some people will like an app like Google Desktop, while I prefer locate32. This is yet a point that doesn't matter.
#9: which will affect end users exactly how much? The improvements I heard of basically sounded useful for high-load fileservers with gigabit-or-faster NICs... and didn't sound like something that isn't doable under XP.
#10: oh. What a big deal. Yawn.

BUT!!! VISTA WILL HAVE DX10 AND SUPPORT FOR HYBRID HARDDRIVES OMG!!11! one one one. Yeah. And while MS will claim that this is for "brand-spanking new architectural reasons", the real reason is of course they need some selling point for Vista, and that's the reason they won't be ading support for those useful features in XP.

And then there's all the DRM crap that, until properly circumvented, will put a limit on what you can do with your own stuff - as well as take up resources because of the extremely aggressive way it's implemented.

cranioscopical: there's a difference between squeezing the last drop of performance from something and handcoding everything in assembly, which is pretty useless today... and then writing extremely shitty, bloated and buggy code with exponentially inflated resource requirements. Vista is, of course, the latter of the two. The frigging core OS shouldn't eat resources at that rate, resources that are much better spent in your apps/games/etc.

Curt · « **Reply #16 on:** January 26, 2007, 04:02 PM »

It sure is hard to be number one... If Vista had been named XP SP 3, you would all commemorate Microsoft, wouldn't you

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #17 on:** January 26, 2007, 04:04 PM »

Quote from: f0dder on January 26, 2007, 03:56 PM

Let's look at Carol's top 10 list....

Weren't mine - I quoted them from Ruffnekk's post.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #18 on:** January 26, 2007, 04:06 PM »

Quote from: Curt on January 26, 2007, 04:02 PM

It sure is hard to be number one... If Vista had been named XP SP 3, you would all commemorate Microsoft, wouldn't you

I somehow doubt it if installing SP3 involves the extra hardware required to run Vista fully without even consider any applications!

MS have also cynically postponed XP SP3 to 2008 (after Vista SP1 is due) to try and convince people to upgrade ...

Curt · « **Reply #19 on:** January 26, 2007, 04:34 PM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on January 26, 2007, 04:06 PM

I somehow doubt it if installing SP3 involves the extra hardware required to run Vista fully without even consider any applications!

MS have also cynically postponed XP SP3 to 2008 (after Vista SP1 is due) to try and convince people to upgrade ...

Of course I was unfair and distorted the situation, but was I far out? I don't think so - to my experience Bill Gates / Microsoft has a lot less room than other people / companies, before we spank...

2008 is a long time to wait for XP SP 3 - if ever... Do you remember (because I don't): When XP was launched; did Win2K ever receive any new features, or were it security updates only? To my memory it was security only, and I don't expect XP to be handled any different - and so there'll really be no reason for waiting for XP SP 3, will there?

Anyway, I'll not buy Vista until Agnitum says it is okay
- and so far they're saying No.

cranioscopical · « **Reply #20 on:** January 26, 2007, 10:47 PM »

Quote

f0dder: there's a difference between squeezing the last drop of performance from something and handcoding everything in assembly, which is pretty useless today... and then writing extremely shitty, bloated and buggy code with exponentially inflated resource requirements. Vista is, of course, the latter of the two. The frigging core OS shouldn't eat resources at that rate, resources that are much better spent in your apps/games/etc.

I couldn't agree more! That said, I still think market forces will take us to VISTA, like it or not.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #21 on:** January 29, 2007, 10:57 PM »

Interesting article at ZDNET with some GOTCHAS for people who are daft enough to try and upgrade ... some really good ones here - like if you used Windows XP Backup then VISTA can't read the backup files!

See http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=221&tag=nl.e550 for the complete list.

cranioscopical · « **Reply #22 on:** January 30, 2007, 12:06 AM »

Quote

Carol: if you used Windows XP Backup then VISTA can't read the backup files!

Great Mackerel! Whatever will they do wrong next?

Did you see that you can no longer just 'upgrade' a clean machine?

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #23 on:** January 30, 2007, 09:22 AM »

LOL - this one beggars belief ... apparently you cannot do a clean install with the VISTA upgrade discs like you could with the XP discs ...

see http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/Ou/?p=414

Effectively if you have a problem (eg. hard disc crash, virus infection) which means that you have to start with a freshly formatted hard disc then you will need to fully install Windows XP or Windows 2000 befaore installing VISTA from an upgrade disc! As if it didn't all take long enough anyway!

Lashiec · « **Reply #24 on:** January 30, 2007, 12:11 PM »

Yeah, Vista is WAAAYYY faster than XP... What a bunch on nonsense. The only thing I need now is Paul Thurrott telling me that Vista "feels" faster than XP, even on old machines...

The truth is that Vista is, at least for now, slower than XP. I tried Vista Ultimate yesterday in a friend's computer for a while, and I was amazed by its slowness. It literally takes minutes to shut down the SO, and despite the hardware acceleration, the shell is not faster than the one from XP. Of course, I'm talking about a first installation and a cold start. Once people start discovering tweaks and disabling services, things could go for the better, but for now, even on brand new computers, Vista is NOT an option. Not to mention its hugely insane usage of RAM. How many RAM could need a SO for basic operations??