Slashdot Mirror
Early Testers Say Vista RC1 Not Ready
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.'"
I never understood this MS terminology. From my point of view a Release Candidate is in a shape that I could just recompile the software without the debugging symbols if no major bugs are reported. No one considers this to be even a remote possibility in case of Vista RC1. My guess is that they will also need a RC2, RC3 and maybe even RC4 and than a RRC1 (real Release Candidate) before shipping.
My experience with RC1 has been mixed. Do I think it's light years ahead of the disaster that was Beta2? Yes, absolutely. It's stable enough to use as an everyday operating system. Is it ready for showtime? Eh. Perhaps. Is it what we have waited six years for? Heck, no. Where are all the interesting bits gone?
The more interesting question is that of nomenclature. I agree that this is Beta3 - but more because an RC everywhere else is something that is ready to go, it just needs spit and polish to get it ready, fix a couple of bugs. Then again, this is what Microsoft is telling people to test their applications against to check for breakages, so yes, I suppose you could call it a "Certification Beta" or what have you. But call it what you may, I think it's the Ultimate version, with all the games, and goodies, that needs more time. Enterprise-wise, it looks stable enough for use - networking is better than XP (even though it's a new stack), group policy has been better fine tuned, UAC is usable enough, and hardware detection is light-years ahead of XP. All of those basic things are ready and if thats what enterprise customers are expected to get, then I think it's good to go, after they fix the occaisonal dialog box with three different fonts.
I just wish there was something truly innovative to encourage an upgrade. Halo 2 doesn't count, especially for business!
I am not an anecdote. I am a free man!
;-)
Vista has major Explorer bugs, still in evidence. Thumbnail rendering (the default setting)is buggy, and causes crashes.
DivX codec is a big culprit here. On trying to render the thumbnail, the codec causes an excepton under Vista. Explorer SHOULD trap this, and render a grey square, or something.
Instead, explorer faults, and the entire desktop - including the menu, taskbar, and any current file transfers - goes HUP.
The "cure" is to check the option for opening all new explorer windows in their own process. That's incredibly wasteful of resources - of course, if you can run Vista at speed... you probably already have a Lamborghini. You can also tell explorer to never render thumbnails. Seems like a real waste, 'tho'.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I've been really surprised at Vista pricing. It seems to me there's no reason to buy Vista at retail when you could buy a new computer when Vista comes out for not that much more money than the upgrade alone. I could see paying $99 to upgrade to Vista, or even meeting Apple's upgrade price at $129, but pushing $200 to upgrade XP Pro to Vista pro sounds like a bad dream.
From an aesthetic point of view, MacOS X is a no-brainer. You can run Photoshop on it, and if you decide the GIMP or other open source applications are your cup of tea, you can run them too.
Also, if you do video or plan to do video, the Apple applications are absolutely unbeatable.
D
The performance is closer to Windows XP if you factor out the still awful sidebar. In some areas it equals XP's performance, in other areas it still lags a bit behind. Compatability isn't much of an issue either at this point. Honestly, compatability wise, considering the changes under the hood, the changeover to Vista should be a lot smoother than when everyone started transitioning over to Windows 2000 several years back.
The reason why Vista is definitely *not* ready for release though, is the overall design of the OS itself. Vista has no unified feel to its design, and certain key changes from Windows xp feel more cumbersome(or at the very least awkward to get adjusted to).
Vista really does highlight the differences in design philosophy that went into it versus Mac OS X. While technology implementation wise the two OS's are rather similar in what they can offer the user, OS X goes to great pains to offer a unified and relatively easy to use design. Vista, on the other hand, feels exactly the way it was designed: done in pieces by various different groups then pieced together.
The short of it is the core of Vista, baring a few more bug fixes and performance improvements, is certainly there. But, Vista right now is like that unassembled bike you got as a kid for Christmas. All the parts are there but you can't quite get it fitted together right.
In my honest opinion Vista needs about 3 more months and one more major release to get the final kinks out of the system performance and bug wise, but then it needs another 6 months of heavy and pure public beta use and feedback to get the interface and design unified into a user friendly operating system. As it stands right now, I think performance and bug wise Vista should be pretty much ok by the time the consumer release hits in January, but it is going to be far more cumbersome and even less intuitive to use than Windows XP is on release.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
This is being promoted by Microsoft as a Release Candidate 1. By stamping this a Release Candidate product, the product team is saying "We believe this product is completely finished, polished, optimized, bug free, and ready for mass production. Unless you, our fearless users, discover something, THIS is the product we mass-produce and distribute by the millions."
Except for the inconvenient fact that everyone who has seen it knows that's simply nonsense. In reality, this is a late alpha (unoptimized, feature incomplete, substantial bugs remain) or at best an early beta (feature complete, largely optimized, some bugs remain), but based on reports calling this a Beta is being generous. But to call it a release candidate is absurd. No way! Seriously, we're STILL hearing reports of features being removed from the product.
One thing that Linux does worse at then Windows? Despite being a real Windows anti-fan, I can easily answer that question: WPA on WiFi. Actually WiFi in general.
This is a real problem for Linux. You can get there, but only for certain hardware, and there is often a lot of blood sacrifice involved. I have even seen WiFi drivers that kernel panic linux. There is a good argument that this is because the vendors are not supporting linux, and have heavily restricted access to the driver APIs. But you still cannot count it as a place where linux is superior to Windows.
There are lots of other places were linux is simply not polished enough... or better said: is rather rough. It has been improving, but still has a long way to go.
The problem is we do not compare the two product correctly.
What I mean is Windows 2003 cost about 800$
Linux (Most distro come at NO cost)
Second Windows is supported by a huge corporation (and support device reseller (ie Wifi, SATA, MB, WinModem)
Linux is created by a bunch of "lunatic" (I'm one of them)
Windows aims to be as easy to use as possible (Lower cost of ownership = Low salary wages) (Check box, Wizard)
Linux aims to be as "powerfull"/features/customizable as possible. Complete Config txt files.
So Windows is easy and Linux is complexe (high learning curves)
When you ask "Name one thing Linux does worse than Windows" there are tons of stuff, others will probably point some of them to you. My point remains, Linux and Windows are not on the same playfield.
Don't you think ?
No, I don't. I disagree completely.
Basically your argument is what windows users use when Linux is eating windows' lunch in the server market. which, by the way, it is doing. Only Linux and Windows are gaining market share in this space now (they seem to trade off gaining ground here and there, but that could simply be due to the release of various studies at various times.)
Linux is competing directly with Windows. Period. It's competing for the desktop (somewhat poorly) and it's competing for the server market (with great success.) It's competing for the embedded market (where it has made serious inroads against the incumbents, including the aptly-named wince) quite well, too; for instance, I work in a Casino, and I walked in one day and saw kernel messages on a slot machine that had just rebooted. Using Linux for slot machines is something of a no-brainer due to the high level of security and reliability, and low cost.
By the way, have you even used Ubuntu yet? The learning curve on that is, if anything, shallower than Windows. The install is easier, and using it is no harder.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
> The Gimp kicks the pants off of PhoSho if you know how to use it
What we need is a mod rating of "-1, crack baby".
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
Toward the end of its life, a Microsoft OS becomes fairly reliable and stable.
This is bad, because people might decide it's worth sticking with indefinitely.
Therefore, themasses must be goaded into upgrading to a shiny! new! OS which is a 1.0.0 release at best and will require umpteen more rounds of patching.
This is, of course, accomplished by EOLing past versions, and pointing out that oh, by the way, the latest batch of 43 security vulnerabilities has been in every version since Windows 3.11 and will only be fixed in this shiny! new! version.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Dammit, twitter. Every time I stumble on one of your posts, it's like an icepick in my ear.
Typos aside, that's the one fair statement in the whole post. Microsoft has monopoly power, so there's nowhere to go but down.
Ah, typical twitter logic. "Hmm, I want to get my software on 90% of desktops in the world. I'm not building it for that nasty, tricksy Windowses. If I make it cross-platform, somebody might run it on Windows anyway. I know! I'll write it for Linux, then wait for 90% of the desktops in the world to convert! And if anybody asks for a Windows version, I'll tell them to fuck off! Then they'll convert to Linux for sure!"
Oh, bloody hell. I fell into a decade-long coma again? The first time, The Police broke up. Now Linux has conquered the desktop and Microsoft went Chapter 11, and they're just building keyboards and mice for Sun?! At least my hairstyle is back in fashion again.
Of course, the only reason you picked that quote from the parent post in the first place was because somewhere, deep down, you recognized yourself in it.
This sig intentionally left blank.