Latest Vista Build Making Real Progress

feminazi writes "Computerworld's Scot Finnie has reviewed the newest Vista build and found some significant improvements over Beta 2, which he had previously criticized in pretty strong terms. There's improved performance, greatly reduced installation time, four network control panels and some wizards have all been combined into one nicely organized Network and Sharing Center. Microsoft is also reducing the number of annoying User Access Control (UAC) prompts. There are some minor improvements in the way Media Center handles windows, but it's still buggy."

Comments

In other news...

[elzurawka]

The sun is HOT!

Seriously, New Beta is more stable then Old Beta. A company takes the advice from beta testers and fixes issues the everyone complaines about.
Congratulations M$, you have amazed us all again!

Re:In other news...

[MrFlannel]

30s? You call that hot? Over on this side of the pond it's close to 100!!
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/

Re:In other news...

[Surt]

It's news because when you're dealing with MS software, you can't take forward progress for granted. Compare win98se to winME.

Re:In other news...

[fm6]

Graphical User Interfaces are intuitive because you can remember the location of things.

GUIs were intuitive, back when they were invented. That's no longer considered important. Now, the purpose of GUIs is to look cool.

Re:In other news...

[EvanED]

I read it as sarcasm against the newsworthyness of the story myself.

Re:In other news...

[drinkypoo]

Graphical User Interfaces are intuitive because you can remember the location of things.

1: No, they're not. GUIs are intuitive because the human brain was hard-wired to operate in a universe where there are blocks and shapes and stuff. DOS 5 had a GUI of sorts, that was every bit as intuitive as Windows or Mac could ever be.

Actually, GUIs aren't intuitive regardless. Sit the average person without any computer experience (an oxymoron today, but anyway) down in front of a computer with or without a GUI and they will be more or less equally confused. The only computers that are even close to intuitive are the turnkey devices like iPods, or the Mailstation e-mail appliance.

However, one thing we do know (from researching the subject) is that if things move around the GUI they become harder to find, whether we're talking text labels, images, or both, because you can no longer use "muscle memory" to locate them. Muscle memory is a very real phenomenon and is the primary reason why repetitive training of any kind is helpful. The brain likes to follow existing patterns that it already follows, which is also why habits are, well, habit-forming.

Folders and files, which move, aren't the sort of things they were talking about. Windows has at least three ways to make a command or folder always in the same location -- which is something most folk don't want, so it's not used very often.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Three ways to make a command or folder always in the same location? Are you trying to say that there are three ways to make a command or folder that are always in their customary locations? It's not quite what you said and I only want to clarify, I am not trying to be a smartass (for once.)

Anyway I haven't had many problems with the muscle training issue on Windows. Where I do see the issue is on the Mac. They went from the very nice, simple, functional Dock on NeXTStep to the stupid, eye-candy, glitz-only Dock on OSX. The primary difference? The new one looks slick, and the old one's elements are always in the same damned place.

Re:In other news...

[grcumb]

"[Windows 98 RC1] was stable, it was reliable, and it stayed running for days without problems, instead of crashing every six to twelve hours."

Man, some days, the jokes just write themselves. 8^)

For those who haven't had their coffee yet: the statements 'stable', 'reliable' and 'runs for days without problems' are not exactly synonymous.

PRINT View

[in2mind]

Printable view here
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=printArticleBasic&articleId=9001888

Improvements vs. limitations

[alpinerod]

I wonder how much time is really spent on fixing bugs and improving the system overall, as opposed to putting in various limitations and DRM compliance. Maybe I'm going on a limb out here, but I've lost trust in Windows platform ever since the WGA hit the news. Most likely XP is going to be the last MS-based _personal_ use OS I will ever use (hopefully).

Re:Improvements vs. limitations

[drsmithy]

WGA is only a problem for people who've purchased Windows.

Actually, it's far more of a problem for casual, non-technical pirates than the handful of legitimate customers who have been misidentified.

I personally know of at least half a dozen people who have subsequently either a) purchased a legitimate copy of Windows, b) downgraded back to their older, legitimate version or c) bought a Mac, because they lack the technical knowledge to keep up with the WGA arms race.

WGA is certainly going to reduce the level of Windows piracy. Unfortunately for Microsoft, it's going to do so because some people will move away from Windows altogether.

Now if you have a legitimate activation required license of Windows, that is when you have to deal with WGA spying on your every keypress and sending the data off to Redmond with your credit card number.

Yay for ignorant hyperbole ! Also, don't forget to mention that WGA kills puppies...

Simple fact is that WGA is utterly transparent and utterly irrelevant to most legitimate users, and even those it isn't, it isn't an issue for very long.

Re:Improvements vs. limitations

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Where the hell do comments like yours even come from? There is so much negative PR around Vista that I guess people just ignore the reality of the system.

Download Beta 2 (you can get it for free), install it, use it for 20 minutes, and you'll see just how stupid a lot of the FUD is. Vista is very, very much like XP in terms of DRM, restrictions, and the like. TPM support is minimal (only used for BitLocker), you can still install unsigned drivers, uTorrent and Azureus still run fine, K-Lite Mega Codec Pack still installs fine and XVID movies still work.

I guess the most annoying thing about posts like yours is that they are so nondescript. Which DRM features are you referring to? What limitations are you referring to? I see an OS that is no more restricted than XP. The new DRM features don't mean a thing to me because I don't buy WMV-DRM movies.

Vista is making real progress and is shaping up to be a substantial, albeit not revolutionary, upgrade from XP. Slashdot doesn't like that.

Highlights

[Anonymous Coward]

The server is pretty sluggish right now, so here are some choice tidbits:

"... when powering up the hardware required by Vista, we had a brownout affecting neighboring homes -- a massive improvement over the four-city-block blackout resulting from the prior build. This is likely because I was able to pull several pre-release Xeon 5100 boards out of the render farm for Aero ..."

" ... license verification now involves a latex glove for Microsoft's safety, and astro-glide for customer comfort, a major improvement over ..."

"While it was annoying to have to confirm my Firefox download 18 times, Microsoft graciously refrained from sending another squad of Khazak mercenaries to 'verify safe uninstall of hacker tools.'"

"Vist has not yet drowned the remaining kitten."

Beta Coverage

[bano]

taco needs to create windersvistabeta.slashdot.org for all this shit.
Seriously why does a friggin beta need so much coverage here.

Re:Beta Coverage

[Pengo]

"Seriously why does a friggin beta need so much coverage here."

Hmm, lets think about this Einstein. Maybe because the Windows franchise is the most widely used consumer desktop OS on the planet?

Quit being such a fuck-tart, you don't have to click and read the story if you don't like it. Filter the MS related news if you don't want to read it. Based on the number of responses this story gets, I imagine that a number of people are genuinely interested in what progress is being made on a OS that will be shoved down all our throats over the next 5-10 years.

Re:Beta Coverage

[Tim]

taco needs to create windersvistabeta.slashdot.org for all this shit.

Nah...they just need to give it its own icon. A panoramic view of a landfill seems appropriate....

Re:Deliberately setting the bar low?

[HillBilly]

Some goofs may be obvious to us because they were seen with fresh eyes. When you work with something long enough you tend to forget that bad things are there.

wrappers

[happyfrogcow]

I wonder if this build was delivered wrapped in hundred dollar bills.

Re:Will it come packaged with..

[$RANDOMLUSER]

> Duke Nuken Forever?
Yes, and the TV ads will be done by the Prophet Zarquon.

Deleting Shortcuts with UAC

[ben there...]

FTA:

One of the most mystifying UAC behaviors in Vista Beta 2 caused a prompt to appear when you tried to delete some desktop program shortcuts. If the program was installed for use by all accounts in Vista, then UAC blocked the deletion of the icon in Beta 2 with a permission prompt. If the program was only installed for the current account, then deletion of the same program shortcut would occur normally. Since there's no way for Windows users to know which way the program was installed, even experienced beta testers were confused. For Build 5472, so long as the running account has administrator privileges, then icons installed "on the public desktop" will be deleted without issue when you drop them into the Recycle Bin.

That's an odd criticism of UAC. With XP, if you run as a limited-access user, it simply prevents you from deleting the All Users shortcuts at all. Of course Vista's UAC would require a password for that. You don't have permission to modify that folder.

Apparently the criticism must be coming from people who never ran XP securely. That said, it's probably more convenient now. No right-clicking Windows Explorer and having to hit Run As like you do in XP to delete All Users shortcuts.

Re:Deleting Shortcuts with UAC

[nine-times]

That was my thought exactly. Beta testers revealed that the OS behavior was stupid, and sure enough, Microsoft changed the behavior-- to a different stupid behavior.

Seriously, there's just something a little wrong with the way Microsoft handles the "All users" profile. It's a pretty good idea-- to have a place where if you change the settings, it changes for all users. However, it's more complicated of a situation than Microsoft's handling of it implies.

There are your criticisms, and others besides, of Microsofts methods, but I think their solution should entail at least 3 features:

• Administrators should be able to create an "All users" profile as default settings.
• Individual users should be able to override these settings without changing the "All users" profile
• Administrators should be able to block non-admin users from overriding invdividual settings in the profile.

Creating the administrator interface for this behavior might be a bit complicated, but that's how it should work.

20% chance of slipping again...

[Foofoobar]

I find it interesting that Bill Gates at a recent symposium told Microsoft affiliates that there is a 20% chance that Vista would slip again. Since I live in Seattle, I have friends who are developers over there who swear it will never make the January deadline.

I love it when they are already talking about the new release slipping when they have already made promises through their teeth for the last 3 years.

This seems crazy, but...

[ndykman]

Am I the only one that is hoping that Microsoft can deliver a better OS? Like it or not (or for most ./ers), it's widely used, it will be in use at some point, and frankly, if it is an improvement, then doesn't that help everybody out. Less windows problems and better windows software seems to mean less headaches for everybody all round. Wouldn't three major (okay, 3.5 Sorry BSD folks 8-) great OS choices be better than two? Personally I don't think XP/2003 is all that bad, I use them everyday.

I just don't buy the whole Microsoft is hurting Linux/Apple/BSD etc. because all of those systems are growing and getting better all the time. Linux is getting better and better, OS X is super cool, and so on.

Sure, I think some people would hope that a awful Vista will sink MS. Well, it won't. because if ME didn't, I can't see Vista doing it. So, maybe it's best to hope for a good OS from MS, more secure, less bugs, less @#$@#$@#%%^ spyware/adware infections for us to all fix, etc. etc, and then just focus on using what we like.

Re:This seems crazy, but...

[peragrin]

i personally had high hopes for vista. Back when they were talking about how the entire thing was rewritten from the ground up. How features like IE were removed from the Kernel, and turned into ordinary apps. I was looking forward to the fact that MSFT would finally fore users and developers to deal with multiple users per computer in a proper way. That the mess that was win32 would be tossed completely in favor of ONLY Aero's .NET setup. I was hoping beyond hope that MSFT's purchase of VPC was a sign that they were going to do a VPC version of win32 inside of Vista so that Vista code ould be stab le and yet still maintain backward compatibility(ala wine, or Classic mode for OS X)

Then when in Jan. after the first beta was released and the WMF flaw was found not only in XP but Vista as well, and MSFt's excuse was that they hadn't yet checked that dll I knew MSFt was going down hill. Win32 code is still present and merely thrown on top. no separate layer just direct cross calling. no sand boxing old apps properly just an ugly hack to keep everything working. Then with Beta 2 MSFT has to "fine Tune" UAC means that the system doesn't work right. That security will be to complicated for the average users and weak admins which make up 75% of MSFT's install base. MSFT never learned the KISS principal creates a stronger security layer, and then you add on more complicated layers for fine grained control ala selinux, and the other systems designed for hardening a computer, but aren't needed by say my mother.

UAC can be tightened up well, and MSFT and real admins will do so for Servers and other important machines. But the home user will only get frustrated at it's complexity and find ways to disable it like they have already begun to do in the betas.

While I had High hopes for Vista, the above combined with the outrageous hardware requirements to deliver the same features found in OS X running on literally a 1/3 of the hardware has found my hope for vista gone. i have converted my brother to OS X If I can get my mother then all will be good. My brother could switch to linux if he desired, and my mother isn't a tech person.

Unrealistic expectations

[Anonymous Coward]

We each have our own metric here. I'd say Vista was making real progress when it could fit in the memory footprint of XP -- or better yet, 2K.

2K?!? For a modern operating system? The average Atari 2600 game is larger than that!

ABUSE OF MODERATION

[drinkypoo]

How is this a troll? WinME was a horrible crashfest that was actually less reliable than Windows 98, and ran less software. It's pretty hilarious to me that they eliminated the 16 bit system in an effort to make it more reliable, and failed completely, only accomplishing a dramatic reduction of backwards compatibility.

If you were going to give the parent comment a negative mod, it would be flamebait. The difference between a troll and flamebait is that you believe your flamebait, but trolling by definition means you are expressing a view that you yourself do not believe in order to elicit a desired response. However, I consider it to be a salient point given Microsoft's track record. WinME isn't the only example, either, I can remember a service pack for NT4 and another one for Win2k that both screwed things ALL up.