Slashdot Mirror
Tom's Hardware Looks at Microsoft Vista Beta
RockClimbingFool writes "Tom's Hardware has a pretty good overview of what the current beta version of Microsoft Windows Vista has to offer. The article is written from an average user's perspective, specifically highlighting exactly which differences the average computer user can expect to see from Windows XP to Windows Vista. It covers everything from IE7, to the new Windows Aero interface, to brand new games." But if you'd like your eye candy open source and downloadable now, check out Lunapark6's review of the current version of Ubuntu Dapper, with "emphasis placed on helping someone set up the system for everyday desktop usage."
Oh and typical Tom's 40 pages of screen shots means 40x the ad revenue [next].
The windows vista still has some major issues. I understand that it's just a beta, but there are still some major bugs to be worked out.
Current Problems:
1) Not all wmv, avi, or mpegs play properly. Some of them can take 5-10 minutes to load and then give an error. The exact same file plays flawlessly in XP
2) IE 7 needs has some compatibility issues. I understand that some pages have issues as they were designed for IE 6, but when Firefox and Opera render them correctly, that's an issue
3) The new file system.....garbage......I don't need to be babied. The simplified file system is nice for normal users, but I want an option to have full control over my file system.
4) I like the fact that an instance of a program dies when an error occurs, instead of the whole file system, but an error message would be nice.
5) Sometimes when the processor usage gets high the screen goes black and won't revert back. That may need to be fixed.
There are some nice features, but they have a lot of work to do before this thing is ready.
The first things I notice:
1.) This review is forty pages. Thanks, toms hardware [next] for really cashing [next] in on those ad [next] impressions. They've been doing this for years, and if they didn't actually have substance to their reviews, it would be remarkably annoying. Err. Something.
2.) The very first screenshots of the Aero vs. Vista Basic interfaces look identical. Just to make sure, I loaded them up in photoshop. The "preview" window is exactly the same between the two. What?
Still reading...
sig?
If I'm not up to "read" 40 pages of screenshots, what, besides gfx of the UI (which has been already backported to XP as "skins") has changed in Windows?
Oh, Vista-only apps. Yay. Now why won't they work in XP? Some essential feature of XP missing? Or just to boost Vista sales? Want new game? Buy new Windows. And of course a new computer, because even if your current hardware could handle the gfx of the game if it was running under XP, it won't handle compound load of the game and Vista.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
This site has quite possibly committed the worst sins of "maximizing advertising revenue at the expense of usability" of any site I would ever admit to browsing of (admit, mind you).
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
I've been suffering XP for almost six years now. Is this beta going to define Windows for the NEXT six years? If so, I'm unimpressed.
Don't get me wrong. I welcome a much needed update to Windows. The features of Vista, however, aren't quite wowing me. The performance should be worse than XP given the heaftier requirements. There's still no WinFS, promised back in '96. The Win64 API is pretty bad (I'm a developer). Other than eye candy and clones of the most popular Mac OS features, what will I be getting for my money?
Stability, performance, and enterprise features are what I want... not an updated Minesweeper. Will the Bluetooth protocol stack be less problematic than XP's? I hope so. Will they support WPA2 natively, without 170MB of updates? Will IPV6 be native? How about IPSEC support? Will it actually work this time? How bad is the new Windows shell? Is it close enough to Bash or even csh to be useful? What's Task Manager like? Do I still have to wait seconds for it to appear when a process runs amok? Does the UI remain responsive during heavy calculations (I do a lot of 3D)? Can I install games without worrying about which version of DirectX is installed? Will the new version of Office install things I'll have to disable, like toolbars, fast find, and Word integration into Outlook express? Do I still need to press Ctrl+Alt+Delete to do things?
These reviews rarely touch on any issue that's actually important to me. Yes, it looks pretty and it should dammit. But does it work as well as it looks? That's what really matters. Microsoft keeps pulling features and slipping the release date. I doubt the reviewers remember Cairo.
I beta tested Windows 95 / Chicago and recall how slow that thing was. The production release was hardly much faster, despite the assurances. In fact, the beta versions of Windows 95 ran more stable, IMO. The graphics were even slicker. I ran Win95 beta until Microsoft shipped OSR2. It was a matter of necessity.
When will Ars Technica do a thorough review? That I might be interested in.
I wish they'd made an argument or two to support that conclusion. After reading TFA (or rather looking at it, it's very low-wordage), I have come to the conclusion that it has a very nice user interface, it will be easier for average people to use, and if the security features work as advertised, they might have that particular problem licked. I think it will also spur the Windows fanboys to make hundreds of pronouncements about Vista's unquestioned superiority over Mac OS X, on the basis of two interlocking arguments:
These things given, Vista is a better operating system. But...
I think BillG and SteveB are convinced that MS will become the American Megatrends of the Internet-connected future if they don't take the lead and kill Google, which is causing them to gamble big on web services -- I just don't see such things as the end-all that the Win32 OS is.
If MS really wanted to make money off web services, they'd fully adopt open web standards, and then buy a telco or 3.
2 cents
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Yeah, but I think that's the point. The OSS community is doing just fine right now. It doesn't need mainstream attention to survive. It'd just be *nice*.
This is basically all of humanity though.
People buying HDTV early without doing research? Getting stuck with weird modes that can't do the copy protection as well...
People buying gas guzzling cars that need maintanance every two weeks.... oh well...
People buying over priced power sucking desktops for the most basics of tasks...
etc, etc, etc.
The recurring theme is "I shouldn't have to learn stuff to do stuff" like learn how to use a computer to use one, or how a car works to own one, or the gist of the HD specs before shelling out five grand on a TV, etc, etc...
Really I think people deserve what they get. If you're too lazy to actually work for something [e.g. a free and stable desktop OS] then you don't deserve one.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I have been using, contributing, and developping source code for alternative OSes and various open source projects since 1998; all of my 5 personal boxes have been running Linux/BSD only since 2000; and 95% of the server and desktop machines I have installed or administered at my previous and current jobs have been running Linux/BSD. So I think I have a pretty good view on the advantages (and inconvenients) of alternative OSes.
Let me reply to your questions. It is true that Xgl is very new and will continuously need to improve. It is true that not ALL apps are packaged by Ubuntu, however with a current count of 17,000+ it is way enough for an average desktop user (I have personally only had to package myself obscure command-line tools that nobody else should ever need). However you are fundamentally wrong when stating that "it has still got a long way to go" for the desktop user. The remaining issues can basically all be regrouped under 2 banners: "lack of open source drivers" or "lack of proprietary software XYZ under Linux". Those 2 things are VERY important, but the whole framework for a successful operating system is already here. If your hardware has open source drivers and if you don't depend on a particular proprietary application, then there are virtually nothing preventing you from fully enjoying Ubuntu as a desktop user. Unfortunately I also recognize that it is apparently going to take quite some time to convince the remaining "closed" hardware vendors to release open specs of their devices, and that commercial software vendors are also only very slowly starting to consider Linux as a target OS.
More and more it seems to me that Vista is all about gaming. It seems to me that Microsoft has essentially given up on creating a solid, secure platform for those of us who use their computers for work.
Which, I suppose, isn't all that bad a thing. The *nix OSes have such a long lead on all the important featuressystem uptimes, system security, solid code base, etcthat it probably really is best for Microsoft to focus on their XBox systems and cheezy Windows game-focused OS.
I'm pretty sure all the n00bs will be perfectly happy with Vista. It is very pretty, after all. Meanwhile, OS X, BSDs, and Linuxes start looking more and more appealing to people who actually want to get things done for real.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
You've got it right on the money.
XP is certainly not perfect, but frankly, it's "good enough" in many ways that the pain of switching and/or upgrading is just not worth it for a large organization.
I've been using XP as my primary OS for years, and while it certainly has its share of atrocities (as do all OS's), it's the first MSFT OS I've ever actually found to be usable for the long term.
Would I like it to be better? Sure. But Vista is going in the wrong direction. Adding craptacular 3D UI is amusing, but I'd vastly prefer that they solve the problem of "I have to reinstall from scratch every year or so to clear out the vestiges of crud".
And yes, I know I'm making contradictory statements here...
" Slashdot is where the Linux geeks hang out."
Slashdot is a self-proclaimed news site. Spare us the "if you don't like it" crap, parent poster was right.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
You mean it is not useful, when assessing an OS, to compare it to the competition?
You must be a windows user.
The remaining issues can basically all be regrouped under 2 banners: "lack of open source drivers" or "lack of proprietary software XYZ under Linux". Those 2 things are VERY important...
I have to say that this statement sums it up (and loses the argument for you!). There is a long way to go before these two issues are sorted. Nvidia cards are very common today; the Ubuntu install doesn't sort this out. Other hardware can be very tricky too (e.g. wireless cards). Searching for replacements for proprietary software can also be tricky (and frequently end up using 3-4 pieces of software (or learning some CUI stuff) to replace 1 piece of Windows software).
I'm not a 'common user', but I'm not a programmer...
it took me 3 weeks of posting to forums (fora?) to get my sound card and video card working; and a further week to get the laptop to connect to a projector for presentations etc. The laptop installed Windows XP in 2 hours and worked perfectly first time, first day.
I've already done all my searches for replacements for proprietary software, but it took a long time.
The desktop user facing this situation is not likely to have the faith and patience to switch to Linux, unless they have a very generous and patient geek friend.