Windows Vista

[begsaresponse]

I downloaded the Windows Vista advisor and there are loads of things I have to upgrade or remove before I can proceed!! What is so frustrating is that it does look good! Whats your experience?

[PMK]

How does it look good, and what do you think it will do for you that XP doesn't ?

Peter

I downloaded the Windows Vista advisor and there are loads of things I have to upgrade or remove before I can proceed!! What is so frustrating is that it does look good! Whats your experience?

[endure]

I've installed the Home Premium version onto an Acer 4005. It found all the hardware apart from the built-in card reader so I installed the XP drivers which work OK. Logitech webcam installed OK too. I've only been using it for a day but I'm quite impressed. The screen seems a lot more legible than it did under XP.

[mr_hippo]

XP works for me, is there any benefit in changing. In my, never too humble, opinion, the best version of windows was Windows 98.

[begsaresponse]

How does it look good, and what do you think it will do for you that XP doesn't ?

Peter

I downloaded the Windows Vista advisor and there are loads of things I have to upgrade or remove before I can proceed!! What is so frustrating is that it does look good! Whats your experience?

I guess its what 'tickles your fancy' and for me the way it presents on screen. And the way with ease I could flit between different tabs etc.

[nikster]

I downloaded the Windows Vista advisor and there are loads of things I have to upgrade or remove before I can proceed!! What is so frustrating is that it does look good! Whats your experience?

Vista is ###### annoying - an outright attention-whore. If you like to interact with your operating system more closely than ever before - answering hundreds of dialogs about everything and anything - then Vista's for you!

The font rendering is much improved, leading to a more legible screen as someone mentioned. In general, the graphical user interface looks nicer, but it's marred by idiotic underlying logic. Apparently instead of choosing sensible defaults Vista likes to ask you, the user, what to do. Apparently they think thats good design.

It's like you sit in your car and want to turn right, so you turn on the right indicators. If Vista was running your car, it would now proceed to ask you how long the blinking interval should be and whether you want to save that as the default interval for the future. In a dialog that fills the screen with prose. Choice is a good thing, right?

The improved security implementation is so stupid that it's mind-boggling. They spent how many billions on that? Alarms get triggered for anything and everything. Its like you have an alarm system that produces a thousand false alarms a day. How serious are you going to take these alarms after half an hour? Answer: You will have turned this feature off.

As for the nicer-looking graphics - the font rendering is the only real lasting advantage, the eye candy gets old after two days. It's a welcome improvement but it doesn't make up for the other annoyances. What it does absolutely not look like is 6 years and 6

Honestly, I think that there are a lot of obviously stupid design decisions in Vista which will get smoothed out more and more with subsequent service packs. I would wait for SP2.

PS: I should mention that this is my conclusion after trying Vista Ultimate on my laptop for 3 days. There were positives too, like no hardware issues, no speed issues. But... XP doesn't have hardware or speed issues either...

[Tywais]

I downloaded the Windows Vista advisor and there are loads of things I have to upgrade or remove before I can proceed!! What is so frustrating is that it does look good! Whats your experience?

Vista is ###### annoying - an outright attention-whore. If you like to interact with your operating system more closely than ever before - answering hundreds of dialogs about everything and anything - then Vista's for you!

You do realize that can be disabled (Google)?

[george]

I love it. Not more annoying than ZoneAlarm when it comes to security.

[sjaak327]

It IS very funny, XP was known for quite a few leaks and security issues, Vista mainly has set the security bar higher. Again people complain. Of course you can disable or change the behaviour of UAC (user account control). I don't get any security dialogs anymore. Also be aware that Mac OSX and some editions of linux have pretty much the same behaviour.

I think Vista is great, it looks great, it is quick and stable.

Of course there are some problems. I use the 64 bit version, this means no wireless network (3com is known to be a pain in the ass when it comes to develop 64 bit drivers), also and that's a major issue, Cisco hasn't developed a 64 bit VPN client. So I might have to go back to Vista Ultimate 32 bits, but I'm hoping Cisco will come with a 64bit VPN client soon. Aslo another annoying issue, is that IE7 won't let you but certificates into the trusted store, you have to run as administrator to do that.

For the rest, I really think Vista rocks.

[alexth]

I love it. Not more annoying than ZoneAlarm when it comes to security.

Or BitDefender wich is the most annoying security software EVER. It makes ZoneAlarm look like a holiday software...

[Florin]

I've been using it for quite a while now and only keep an XP-dual boot for the more demanding games, which do not run all that well yet...basically Nvidia is not yet ready with good drivers, so games and HD video run MUCH better in XP. But other than that, it's lovely to use for everyday stuff.

[dclaryjr]

I downloaded the Windows Vista advisor and there are loads of things I have to upgrade or remove before I can proceed!! What is so frustrating is that it does look good! Whats your experience?

I didn't upgrade--I just bought a new lap that had Home Premium on it. I like it so far. The only problem I ran into was trying to run an old version of Agent (1.93) which I use to read Usenet. It wouldn't let me delete any messages and gave me an error message about not being able to modify the database. I ended up upgrading to their latest version since they were offering a $15 deal, and it was advertised as Vista compliant. Then I read on Forte's webpage that there is a solution to my problem.

Bottom line--happy camper so far.

[Valjean]

Very happy with Vista. I did another post here about the things I liked. Make sure you have the hardware to support it.

I agree there are more notifications - but that's part of the security. A lot, maybe most, of the security issues are preventable if the user blocks the bad app or whatever it is. The great thing about a PC is you can download and install anything you want. But that makes security tough – so Vista tries to protect people from this. If you really know what you are doing then it does seem too much to be ask 2 times if something is safe and do you really want to do this. But I suspect for 95% of people that’s the right approach.

[wpcoe]

Of course there are some problems. I use the 64 bit version, this means no wireless network (3com is known to be a pain in the ass when it comes to develop 64 bit drivers), also and that's a major issue, Cisco hasn't developed a 64 bit VPN client. So I might have to go back to Vista Ultimate 32 bits, but I'm hoping Cisco will come with a 64bit VPN client soon.

I'm curious why you opted to go 64-bit?

I know the negatives, like not so many hardware drivers available (like you mentioned), but what are the positives, i.e. benefits of going 64-bit?

I'm asking because I probably will buy Vista reasonably soon, and had been wondering if I should opt for the 64-bit version.

[sjaak327]

Of course there are some problems. I use the 64 bit version, this means no wireless network (3com is known to be a pain in the ass when it comes to develop 64 bit drivers), also and that's a major issue, Cisco hasn't developed a 64 bit VPN client. So I might have to go back to Vista Ultimate 32 bits, but I'm hoping Cisco will come with a 64bit VPN client soon.

I'm curious why you opted to go 64-bit?

I know the negatives, like not so many hardware drivers available (like you mentioned), but what are the positives, i.e. benefits of going 64-bit?

I'm asking because I probably will buy Vista reasonably soon, and had been wondering if I should opt for the 64-bit version.

In general the 64 bit version is faster and more stable. The good thing about Vista is that the DVD comes with both 32 bit and 64 bit versions, so if you want to revert back to 32 bit, this is possible without licensing problems.

[cdnvic]

64 bit's biggest advantage is in it's kernal patch protection. Not allowing the kernal to be modified by third parties makes for some compatibility issues, but also prevents most malware from functioning as well. It's a huge security advantage.

[endure]

The 64 bit version doesn't allow the installation of unsigned drivers which could be a bit of a pain if you make a habit of buying cheap hardware.

[nikster]

64 bit's biggest advantage is in it's kernal patch protection. Not allowing the kernal to be modified by third parties makes for some compatibility issues, but also prevents most malware from functioning as well. It's a huge security advantage.

The weirdest thing about this is that MS had it in all versions of Vista until security companies like Symantec and McAfee wanted it removed and MS then complied. It would have been much better if MS had left it in and just abolished the practice of kernel hooks - it's an obvious and gaping security hole.

I find it ironic that security companies want to leave the hole in. Of course it's because anti-virus software is using these kernel hooks as well - the security concept seems to be to be a bigger and badder, but benevolent virus. The only problem with it is that it doesn't work.

Another Vista review, this time on Forbes - very funny yet 100% accurate:

http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/022...artner=yahoomag

[bkkmick]

Anyone bought their (OEM or other - not 100baht) copy in Thailand? How much did you pay for your version?

[tom579]

For me, DRM is one of the reasons I would not go to Vista - I have already lost several legally bought music licences through MSN Music. My licences seem to randomly expire, and although the helpdesk are very quick at resetting them, the process fails most of the time. I have given up trying to get them back, and I have also given up on buying music online. However, I expect I am going nowhere as the media world seems set on DRM.

Back to Vista, and bearing PattayaPete's comments in mind: does Vista use more CPU/RAM than XP - and is it a lot more? I have a 1GHz Centrino and 1GB RAM (soon to be maxed to 1.5GB). This is fine according to the sticky label on the laptop itself, and according to Vista Advisor, but I find it chugs painfully though XP and some of my apps occasionally. I have doubts whether it will run Vista. Anyone using Vista on a similar spec?

[Florin]

One of the reasons you will need a very powerful computer to run Vista is that it is doing so much checking to make sure you do not have a pirated version of the software or pirated digital content, that half the power of your machine is being eaten up by these pointless additions. Vista will be checking your videos up to 30 times a second to see if they are legal. It can arbitrarily decide that Vista itself is pirated and basically render it inoperable and this can happen with a legal copy.

On every forum there are one or two people that moan about Windows Genuine Advantage and how it crippled their perfectly legal Windows system (and this is not just Vista, mainly XP they're talking about)...if you're using a pirated version (no matter how legal you "thought" that 100B disc was), you have no right to complain, while if you're using a truly genuine version, the problem can easily be remedied. While it does indeed add an extra hassle to the user experience, it is a normal next step to stop casual use of pirated software...this does not mean it's uncrackable, but it does mean that it stops A LOT of people from using their Pantip-purchased illegal copy of Windows. Every time there's an updated version of Windows, there's enhanced piracy protection and people start complaining...with XP it was Activation, with XP SP1 it was the new serial numbering system, later on it was WGA. You know what? USE WINDOWS 95! IT ACCEPTS JUST ABOUT ANY SERIAL NUMBER YOU THROW AT IT! For just about everybody, the time lost with all this enormouse extra hassle you talk about is measured in minutes per year!

Vista can decide to degrade the quality of video you are watching if it feels you are doing something it doesn't like or if your equipment does not have anti-piracy stuff built in. Your video card must have anti-piracy software hard coded into it (which degrades its performance) or your video will be degraded. Virtually no video cards have this yet so everyone is expected to throw out their existing card and buy another one that will be more expensive and will not work as well.

The first scenario you mention does not exist, while the second scenario is only for HD content available on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray discs...this does not mean you can't use your Vista computer at any time to watch 69 Baht DVDs, of freely downloaded (EVEN HD) content off BitTorrent or other such sources. Also, pretty much all new video cards and LCD monitors on the market have HDCP support, with the only thing missing being truly stable proper drivers/playback software to enable this...and yes, people are expected to GET WITH THE TIMES in terms of hardware if they want to use the newest software! Why do you honestly expect being able to run new things forever on an old box?? You can always use it to run anything that existed when it was purchased and many new things since then...yes, of course, software coders could always put more work in and not make stuff so ###### bloated, but this is the world we live in.

Vista adds virtually nothing to your computer experience while it creates many, many hoops you must jump through to validate your continued use of this flawed product.

Right...so, the completely rewritten kernel modules which mean that if for example your graphics driver fails it can be immediately restarted without rebooting the PC, excellent new integrated system apps like Photo Gallery (which means there is no more need for ACDSee and the like for most users...), new shell integration for games, DirectX 10, these all add NOTHING to your computer experience? OK, buddy, maybe they don't for you, stick with XP. As for the hoops we supposedly need to jump through like WGA and Activation...if you purchase it legally, they add about 10 seconds to the installation, if you get it for 100B or free, they add about 5 minutes...yeah, a real back-braking chore.

Don't touch it. XP will be fine for many years to come and Linux is almost ready for the main stream, so hang in there and do not support these crooks.

That's the funniest argument of all...Linux for the main stream...do you have any concept at all of what ANYTHING going MAINSTREAM means?? It will get targeted by every script kiddie and cracker under the sun! The only reason minority software is more or less safe is because some geek in his parent's basement in Wichita or Novosibirsk can't be bothered to crack something that 1% of the market uses, when there's a much bigger target to be attempted. And what's more, 90% of IT security issues are NOT because of some obscure security hole in Windows or IE covered in KB98654, but because someone wanted to see Paris Hilton sucking her boyfriend (as the e-mail he got claimed) or fell victim to an 0-day exploit, which pretty much any experienced hacker can find (it took all of half an hour for Mac OS X).

People should simply use what system they actually enjoy and feel comfortable with, be it Windows, Linux, OS X or <deleted>' AmigaOS...all these broad philosophical implications about companies are POINTLESS.

[A_Traveller]

Vista can decide to degrade the quality of video you are watching if it feels you are doing something it doesn't like or if your equipment does not have anti-piracy stuff built in. Your video card must have anti-piracy software hard coded into it (which degrades its performance) or your video will be degraded. Virtually no video cards have this yet so everyone is expected to throw out their existing card and buy another one that will be more expensive and will not work as well.

The first scenario you mention does not exist, while the second scenario is only for HD content available on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray discs....

The first scenario does exist and has been documented fully both in the public domain and within specialist groups.

As to getting with the times, a PC bought in the dark ages on June 06 have been identified as unsuitable for Vista.

Vista is XP+ and the failure to complete on the original concept of a location agnostic relational OS which was jettisoned along with other key forward looking concepts after 3 years, occasioning the hit the reset button for 2 years of slog to deliver 'something' highlights the issues at the heart of MS itself.

Vista offers some benefits however, it is surprisingly easy to add a great deal of Windows Vista technology to Windows XP with free software downloads from Microsoft.

Functionality

.Net Version 3

IE 7

Windows Defender

Desktop search 3 for XP

Media Player 11 for XP

Windows Live Mail Desktop Beta {Outlook Express replacement}

Virtual PC 2004

XML core

Automatic Disk defragmentation

Alt-Tab replacement for XP

Tuning

Clear Type applet for XP

XPConfig, new version of msconfig.exe

Open command window here

Microsoft Time Zone

Group Shot

Look & Feel {not MS}

Royal Noir Scheme {sourced from within MS but not an official theme}

3d desktop flip TopDesk {Otaku Software free trial then 20USD}

Yahoo gadgets {There is a technique for using Vista gadgets in XP}

Regards

[Florin]

The first scenario does exist and has been documented fully both in the public domain and within specialist groups.

Please show me documented proof of how Vista can degrade the quality of DivX, Xvid or DVD-Video based on failure to validate or activate the OS.

As to getting with the times, a PC bought in the dark ages on June 06 have been identified as unsuitable for Vista.

For an off the shelf PC, unless it has a sticker on it which says "Certified for Windows Vista Premium", it is officially unsuitable for the most demanding new features of the OS. As for purchasing it piece by piece, proper research needs to be done...but that has always been the case.

Vista is XP+ and the failure to complete on the original concept of a location agnostic relational OS which was jettisoned along with other key forward looking concepts after 3 years, occasioning the hit the reset button for 2 years of slog to deliver 'something' highlights the issues at the heart of MS itself.

That is true...much like Suvarnabhumi, it could have been so much more MS does indeed have serious internal issues which have only partially been sorted out...they did focus a lot more on the practical aspect of delivering Vista in the last 2 years, and it showed, otherwise it would have even been a lot less than what it is now. What's worse is that the inner struggle is now working its way through their online services, with a beautiful tug-o-war between the MSN and Windows Live camps.

Vista offers some benefits however, it is surprisingly easy to add a great deal of Windows Vista technology to Windows XP with free software downloads from Microsoft.

I guess it depends which way you look at it...if being critical, it can be considered that Vista is XP+...if being nice, it can be seen that MS does indeed care for its customer base and have provided a lot of great extras for XP at no added cost. SP2, especially, basically provided everyone with a free "XP Second Edition", which had not been the case before.

People I know that have tried Vista have either embraced it immediately or simply not found it enough of a compelling upgrade from XP...it's still early days for this OS and quite frankly, it can only get better. SP1 should bring many features which had been dropped (XFS, weee ) and application compatibility is improving every day as developers deliver updates.

In the long run, it may still not be for everyone, especially since XP truly does work VERY well after all this time...but let's just be a bit more realistic when analyzing its shortcomings, especially DRM. People have been attacking DRM in all its forms for so long, yet the simple fact of the matter is that (the iTunes Store being a notable exception), it's a huge commercial failure and most people aren't affected by it because they just don't use such products.

[cdnvic]

For an OS that so many seem to hate, they sure go to extreme lengths to pirate a copy.

If you don't like Vista, or any other Windows version, don't use them. Problem solved, no whining needed.

[wpcoe]

In general the 64 bit version is faster and more stable. The good thing about Vista is that the DVD comes with both 32 bit and 64 bit versions, so if you want to revert back to 32 bit, this is possible without licensing problems.

Actually the DVD comes with all versions (Home, Home Premium, Business, etc) on it, and the licensing key determines which version's functions will be active.

BUT, are you saying that if I buy and activate a given version (e.g. Home Premium or Business), I will have the option of either 32- or 64-bit and can uninstall one and reinstall the other with the same license and re-activate the newly installed version? If so, that would make my choice a bit easier.

[cdnvic]

If you want to know the truth about Vista rather than what apologists for Micro$oft like Florin say then check out this link for a thoroughly researched analysis of just what Vista is doing.

Auckland university expose of Vista

Yeah, this has been discussed here in other topics. It's also been rebutted by both Microsoft and many industry observers as being a bit overboard despite raising some legitimate concerns.

Bottom line is, if you don't like it, vote with your money and don't use it. Don't go hijacking topics that are discussing something else for yet another tired anti-microsoft rant.

Use Linux, BSD, Mac, Solaris, or whatever makes you happy.

[endure]

Another thing I've found with Vista is that it seems to handle non-native resolutions on LCD screens better than XP. My laptop has a 15.4" screen with a native resolution of 1680 x 1050. Unfortunately my eyes don't and I have to alter the res to be able to read the screen. With XP I had to hack it back to 1280 x 1024 to make it legible. With Vista I'm using 1440 x 900 and it's far easier to read than 1280 x 1024 on XP.

[Florin]

I was going to reply with the text below last night, but my Internet connection decided to die for a while...I won't further comment on what cdnvic rightfully considers a tired, old debate, but anyway, here goes:

If you want to know the truth about Vista rather than what apologists for Micro$oft like Florin say then check out this link for a thoroughly researched analysis of just what Vista is doing.

Auckland university expose of Vista

Here's what it says in the FIRST LINE of that article:

Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to provide content protection for so-called “premium content”, typically HD data from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources.

How is that different from what I initially replied?? Yes, for these new media types, Vista introduces extra DRM...it does not affect previous media types, which (as soon as drivers are truly finalized) will work as well as in XP.

Where all this DRM stuff and copy protection becomes a major pain in the butt for people like me is when you try to use a computer as a home media centre. I want all my LEGALLY purchased content to be on line and accessible from networked computers in the house. I already have this but the hoops and crap that DRM makes you jump through to set it up is just plain ridiculous. Vista introduces a whole bunch more. I know I am an early adopter of this technology but Bill Gates has been mouthing off about how great such systems will be while at the same time making them virtually impossible for anyone who is not very techy to set up.

I am actually currently using my Vista PC as a home media center...in fact, compared to the limited video card/tuner support in the Media Center editions of Windows XP, Vista is much better in the sense that it (Home Premium & Ultimate editions) has included all that functionality, which will work with any video card or tuner with Vista drivers...this is a huge step forward for home-built media server PCs, since having support for this doesn't mean having to obtain a different, dedicated edition of Windows. What's so difficult in using the wizards in Media Center to get access to media from network shares? Real techy indeed...

If you want to use your legally purchased content, then acknowledge the fact that legally, you MUST follow the usage specifications in the EULA you agreed to when you purchased the stuff! Is it annoying and very limited? Yes, of course it is! But no matter in what OS or set-top box you run your stuff, those rules will apply! This is not even Microsoft's doing...they do provide the means to get it done in Windows, but it's definitely the record-labels/movie producers that want this stuff enforced, since it is they, not Microsoft, that lose money every time someone illegally obtains copyrighted material.

The truth of the matter is that DRM and copy protection do not hinder pirates one bit. They only hinder the people who do things legally. Even Steve Jobs at Apple has come to realise the truth of this and is now lobbying hard for itunes stores to be able to sell non-DRMed music. No one is winning this stupid battle but we consumers are losing big time as it is us that pay for it.

Hey, this is a battle we need not fight...you can still buy a 10$ CD, lend it to a friend, convert it to MP3, re-burn it, etc. Online distribution (except for the iTMS+iPod ecosystem) is truly pointless at this stage, and they will have to make amends to make it more consumer-friendly or simply not make any money.

Saying that I should choose not to use Micro$oft products is not an answer either. Sadly they have such a grip on the world that if you need to interact with other business users then you have little choice but to use there overpriced, over protected products. There is a light on the horizon though and that is the way business is starting to embrace the open source community.

Hey, power corrupts...the #1 supplier in any industry will take maximum advantage of its position. And while MS critics can whine about them all day and all night, you can't ignore the main reason they reached that position...us! Sure, shady business tactics have abounded as well, but the fact of the matter is that they have provided people with the most flexible, do-it-all solution...in the business world if you don't change with the times, you die...especially in such a fast-moving industry. I loved Siemens mobile phones, Matrox video cards, BeOS and many other such beautiful things that died. And you also don't think of one of the main products that took MS to the top...OFFICE! Any competing solution is years behind, especially compared to Office 2007.

Your stupid argument that Linux would be more vulnerable to security attacks if it went mainstream is typical of the dis-information Micro$oft apologist spout. Eighty percent of the world's internet servers are running some derivative of Unix and have been since the dawn of the internet. These servers rarely need security updates and despite the best efforts of the worlds hackers have remained pretty invulnerable to attacks. Linux is already mainstream in the server market and undoubtedly will become main stream in the home market soon. Vista with all its crap may just be the catalyst needed to achieve this.

Hey, Unix variants are fantastic as server operating systems, it can't be denied by anyone...but this topic is about what we use in our everyday lives at home and work. If you're not a programmer and just want to get things done and need capable, mainstream software for content creation, editing, etc., desktop Linux has MANY shortcomings...that's not to say it won't work for light word processing, web browsing and such, but every once in a while, we do need more. You think Windows makes digital media sharing hard? Try achieving even remotely similar objectives in Linux and then we'll talk...no DRM is needed there to make certain tasks truly agonizing!

[cdnvic]

Imagine if MS hadn't put the copy protection in and for that reason NO HD content would play on Vista. Boy would people be screaming then.

At least when I use Windows, or any good commercial OS like Mac, the multimedia plays out of the box. You should see the annoyances to get all the right codecs and such installed in a Unix distribution.

Here Steve Gibson throws a bit of common sense into the Vista DRM discussion after looking at both sides of the issue.

http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-077.htm

[wpcoe]

In general the 64 bit version is faster and more stable. The good thing about Vista is that the DVD comes with both 32 bit and 64 bit versions, so if you want to revert back to 32 bit, this is possible without licensing problems.

Actually the DVD comes with all versions (Home, Home Premium, Business, etc) on it, and the licensing key determines which version's functions will be active.

BUT, are you saying that if I buy and activate a given version (e.g. Home Premium or Business), I will have the option of either 32- or 64-bit and can uninstall one and reinstall the other with the same license and re-activate the newly installed version? If so, that would make my choice a bit easier.

I went to Tukcom Center in Pattaya today and Hardware House had OEM Vista Business 32-bit for B6,000. They had NO 64-bit versions of any of the Vistas saying that it didn't work with most motherboards (?) and told me to check the Asus web site to see if my mobo were compatible. I ran 64-bit XP for a while and it worked fine with my hardware, as did the Vista Beta RC1 64-bit. Doesn't matter: they don't have 64-bit anyway, and said they couldn't get it for six months. (?)

Does anyplace in Pantip have Vista Business 64-bit? OEM?

I also am concluding (deducing) that one can NOT switch from 32-bit to 64-bit (or vice versa) without buying another license. One shop at Tukcom "thought" I could "upgrade" to 64-bit directly with Microsoft but had no idea how much it would cost. Anybody here have any information or ideas on that?