Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Early Testers Say Vista RC1 Not Ready

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the is-it-soup-yet? dept.

digihome writes "A number of partners and analysts who have downloaded Vista RC1 say the code is solid but they are not convinced it will be ready for release this fall. A Directions on Microsoft analyst said, 'I would call this at best a Beta Three and not a Release Candidate One.'"

5 of 457 comments (clear)

  1. Re:hmmm? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Microsoft has always rushed it. No new version of Windows has ever been ready for primetime. Windows 3.0? Crap. Windows 3.1 made it barely usable. Then there's 3.11 to add the microsoft networking. Windows 95? Crap. There's four versions of that, at LEAST; Win95, OSR1, OSR2, OSR2.5, and OSR3 that only went out to a handful of corporate customers. Win98? There's a second edition. Windows ME? CRAP. PURE CRAP. Windows 2000? There's what, six service packs now? And at least one of those broke more than it fixed. Windows XP? Two service packs, and there really ought to have been a third by now due to the sheer number of updates that get installed after SP2.

    All microsoft operating systems are crap until near their end of life. It's like a law of nature.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Re:Betas are designed to collect anecdotal evidenc by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative
    The reason that Microsoft, or any other software company releases betas is to gather anecdotal evidence: how do particular configurations work? Are there apps that break and need updating? Is there something they just forgot?


    This isn't a beta; this is a release candidate. Despite the feedback from beta testers who wanted a Beta 3 or at least an RC2, Microsoft has released RC1 and already forked an RTM branch off of it. It's full-steam ahead with this thing.
    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  3. Re:hmmm? by VividU · · Score: 4, Informative

    Windows 2000? There's what, six service packs now?

    Four service packs. SP4 was released June 2003.

    BTW, its kneejerk posts like yours that make Slashdot a diminishing resource for all things Microsoft.

  4. Re:Two questions please... by ThinkFr33ly · · Score: 4, Informative
    Please, do yourself a favor a do a google search about Vista. Slashdot is not the place to learn about the benefits of a Microsoft OS.

    But a quick list from the top of my head (ways it's better than XP):

    • Various kernel improvements in scheduling
    • Completely new TCP/IP stack that offers much greater performance on high latency connections
    • Composited desktop / Aero prettiness (looks far less childish than XP, imo)
    • Resolution/DPI independence
    • Nice UI improvements like Flip3d (works well), taskbar thumbnails
    • Revamped security model (UAC, new system services model, etc.)
    • IE 7+ (Protected Mode IE) - this will virtually eliminate malware via the browser
    • Much better networking UI / auto network discovery - much cooler than I expected
    • New start menu really is a LOT better than XPs
    • Far better Explorer interface - bread crumbs are great (about time)
    • WAY better file operations dialogs
    • WAY better file operations in general (no more huge lag when accessing network devices, disks, etc.)
    • ReadyBoost (uses USB disks as disk caching locations, works very well.)
    • SuperFetch - a much improved version of XPs intelligent caching
    • Integrated Search - works better than anything else out there, including Mac OS.
    • Windows Presentation Foundation (although this will be available on XP)
    • DirectX 10
    • Windows Display Driver Model (virtualization of graphics card memory!)
    • Dramatic improvements in driver development (can develop a simple driver in 500 instead of 5000 lines of code)
    • Great backup utils


    And that was just off the top of my head. There is LOTS of other stuff if you bother to do some research. I can't speak for Ubuntu... one thing is for sure, Vista has a much cooler name. :)
  5. Beta or Release Candidate - Misleading Definitions by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

    'I would call this at best a Beta Three and not a Release Candidate One

    Ok, why is this a RC and not a Beta? Well in the MS world since about 1992 that I can personally 'testify' to, a product makes the RC milestone when it is feature complete from a DEVELOPER standpoint.

    This means that the product is feature complete and 99% of the OS bits and all the APIs are how they will be in the final release.

    Why was Beta2-Pre-RC1 NOT a RC. Simple, from a developer's standpoint the OS was not feature complete.

    RC1 is the FIRST release that that .NET 3.0 and other new API systems are finalized for syntax, so developers can start testing new products against the OS and not have to worry about API changes.

    Sure things will be optimized, and this will be polished, but this IS A RC solely based on the definition that MS has used FOR YEARS. It is feature complete for developers...

    (So aside from all the Joke at MS and other FUD, this is technically a RC, and even though it is not a 'finished' polished product, it is the first feature complete versions, especially from the API standpoint.)

    This is NO different than they did with Win2k RC1 which was actually less stable than Vista RC1, but AGAIN it was API feature complete for developers, hence why it was called a RC and not a Beta, just as this release.

    As for proof of this, look at the Win2k Beta history, or even lookt that Vista Beta History, the .NET 3.0 APIs were changing on a monthy basis up until July, as you will notice that there were .NET3.0/WinFX releases each month, with the APIs for the developers changing. And that is just ONE new API subsystem of Vista.

    So once again repeat,"This is a RC, this is a RC because it is API and Developer complete."

    PERIOD.