Slashdot Mirror
Windows Vista Launches To Mixed Reactions
Several users have submitted stories reporting on the launch of Microsoft's newest operating system. The Guardian focuses on virus warnings already threatening the OS, while the New York Times discusses the bug hunt that's begun. With hackers writing scripts to attack, and well-paid bounty hunters looking for bugs to defend, Vista's first few months on the market are sure to be interesting. In the meantime, what is your impression of the OS? Have you had a chance to use the retail version yet? Are you supporting it in a business environment? What's the launch of Vista been like for you?
Since XP support is due to last until 2011, I'll let you know how it is in about four years.
-JWR
I've Beta'd Vista since Beta 1, and while the software has.....matured....since the initial beta, quite frankly, its still not ready for primetime.
Vista will still peg your processor at around 30% most of the time, mostly for bullshit you don't need or want. User Rights Management may be great for Grandma, but if you know what the fuck you're doing its just obtrusive (although it can be turned off). Driver support is dodgy, even with the big boys (Your video card will probably work, but expect signifigantly lower performance).
Oh, and add in the time during Beta 2 where Windows Update fried my install completely. Thank you for playing, re-install your OS. Yes, it was Beta still, but shit, I can see breaking pieces, or degrading performance, or any other assorted issues I expect. Frying the OS I do not.
All in all, as far as I'm concerned, this is just the next WinME
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I've been using Windows Vista for about a month now and I have found it to be more problems then a big worth while upgrade. Vista seems to be a extreme large resource hog that even with my 1 gig of DDR2 ram and a Pentium M 2.0 processor, it still runs somewhat slugish. As time has gone by and the more I use the OS I have run into countless software conflicts, video driver issues, and many other problems that just should not exist in an operating system that has been in the making for so long. Aero, although looking attractive, still poses problems that in the long run should just not exist. If your going to copy Apple, at least make the system itself work properly.
Well I have been using it for about 2 months. I am a developer and have it on my laptop, so I got it from MSDN.
:)
It's pretty good. Nothing too wrong with it, I have had some issues with drives and a few program not working but that is to be expected. I guess I would say it you get it for free or if you get a new computer it's worth it. The instant search is the coolest "New" feature. It is prettier to look at. One thing I do have to say, I bring my laptop home, my wife, who is a non-technical person like it a lot. She likes the pretty interface, and instant search.
It does have a few annoying prompt screens, and they changed the control panel again, so I can't find anything again
I give it a good 7/10. I would not actively avoid it or pursue it. Is it better than Xp, probably, worth spending money on, probably not yet.
- GUI is beautiful. OSX pales in comparison. - UI has been revamped with all those subtle improvements. Liking it. There are a couple of bugs / annoyances (like disappearing folder view after deleting an item), but overall it is a great improvement over XP. - While some effects (taskbar window preview) are of a novelty value, they serve no real purpose and do not improve your productivity. - Same applies for the Alt-Tab windows preview. Nice, but I prefer the version with program icons. - Some changes are not so nice and confuse the hell out of me (like the redesigned network connections). - Pirating it is a pain in arse. Possible, but you have to go through hoops to get it working. Don't think it is unpiratable as MS claims. More like Vista is employing the security by obscurity principle here (considering the level of complexity and clutter of the OS). - Aero performance is ok on AMD x2 3800 with 1gb of memory and a nvidia 6 something graphic controller. - UAC is way too annoying. Had to turn it off on the - Got hit by spyware (something that never happened in XP with no antivirus installed). What's even worse I had no idea how to defend against it. Wiping all the spyware from the hdd, it just kept finding a way into my computer. As the result, had to reinstall the whole thing altogether. Now seems to be working fine. - Built-in firewall is too confusing and gives a green light to the OS components (god knows what communication takes place between my computer and microsoft). 3rd party firewalls for XP do not work under Vista. - Boot manager got screwed several times with no apparent reason. - Ultimate Edition extras are not worth it. Overall, I like the feel of Vista, but it makes an impression of a raw product. Oh and I absolutely have no idea why it takes 7.3GB of diskspace.
is the memory tester...
That's not an reason. Just pull off a freeware tester. I've used http://www.memtest.org/ using the bootable CD
version on a few occassions and had it pick up problems on two seperate occassions.
that drives me absolutely mental though ... in the windows explorer there is no "up" button, and back does not do the same thing, and yes, I am aware that I can just hit backspace, but when I'm in "mouse only" mode, this does not cut it.
Backspace doesn't work (it doesn't go 'up' and more). They've tied it to the back key.
There's no way to go to the parent directory in vista that I know of other than clicking on the address bar & editing it.. which is hell for me (in keyboard only mode).
Sounds like there is a lot of "overhead", and by overhead I mean fairly useless crap to support eye candy.
Actually, what happened is about 4 years ago someone realized that most of the time fancy graphics processors are sitting idle, so someone decided to offload some of the basic UI functions to it saving CPU use. They also realized they could add "eye candy" that was cool looking and in some cases actually useful, as in providing visual clues to the user about what the OS is doing without any real cost in currently used resources. Not all "eye candy" is useless. Now Windows has caught up in adding this stuff, but it is only available if you have a sufficient video card, in which case it isn't really using much in the way of resources that are normally constrained.
I am a software engineer. I need my PC to run applications, with the machines resources dedicated to my compiles, debug session, code searches, CASE tools, etc. I don't need a search agent running...
I find the realtime indexing and search in OS X quite useful for finding the right file or function call in large builds. It's also nice for finding that preliminary design doc I was e-mailed months ago that was never checked in but which contained more useful info than what is. The fact that I can hit cmd-space-"GRE tunnel redundancy"-enter and have it open a PDF file that might be in my e-mail or in a CVS checkout, or I dropped in a folder somewhere is really useful, to me anyway.
I haven't seen a doggie anywhere but MS Office, and I think it is gone from there too. Certainly I've not seen it built into Vista. Is there such a thing I missed?
So long as it is not using my bottleneck resources, some nice graphics that mentally mark where a Window has minimized to, is useful. Not all the graphics are, but some are. It seems like a net win though.
I'm not sure how exactly the DRM monitors output, but I agree in principal...
Well, there are a few nice additions in Vista, including some of the items I listed above. There are also a lot of anti-features designed to benefit MS at my expense. All in all, it seems like about a draw. The expense, especially for running in a VM will keep me using Windows XP for my Windows needs, for the foreseeable future. That doesn't mean all the features are useless, however, and as they say, you shouldn't knock 'em till you try em. I never would have suspected the searching feature on OS X that MS cloned would get used, but it does, every day. It often happens that a new feature does not sound useful until I use it, then I can't imagine living without it.
The no up button caught me by surprise as well. There is something that gives you the same functionality (and actually a bit more). If you look at the address bar that usually shows the path of the files, you can click on a folder name and explorer will take you that folder. The nice thing about it is that if you want to jump to a folder up more than one, you can do that.
Confusing at first...
You're in a bind. Drivers and speed issues with games are a mess for Vista right now, but a decent bit of that might be sorted out by year's end. And while there are no current DX10 games, they'll be coming within the year. So the answer is: XP for games now, Vista by the year's end.
Beowulf Clusters, by definition, are Linux operated, you frakking poseur.
Sorry, you are correct, the backspace button does not go up. The keyboard shortcut is "ALT + UP"
I've been poking around for a while trying to ask the same questions. There's a fairly good write up at Tom's Hardware on performance differences. Tom's hardware is typically pretty even handed in their benchmark reviews (IMHO), they'll often use a demo or script for a video game and run it a few times to get a solid number.
As you can see, the difference is small but present (favoring XP for games) with the notable standout of Unreal Tournament 2004, however as the reviewer notes, this has a lot to do with the current driver support.
As far as I can tell, I think in the long run when games start making use of DX10 and such, we'll see some nice results, but in the short run games will be better run in XP.
If you need a Windows OS (and I just built a gaming computer myself, so I'm in a similar boat) some stores will sell XP with a free Vista upgrade. That's what I purchased, that way I can use XP for a few months (while Vista figures out what it's doing) and upgrade when I'm good and ready. I'd list where I purchased from, but I'd hate to have my post be construed as advertising, suffice is to say you should be able to find some offers via google.
Hope that helps.
As for this whole vista release thing, it's nothing but a disappointment in my view. As many others have pointed out, it's only a matter of time before a really useful piece of software *requires* vista. I'm in a situation right now where I'm going to have to go from 2000 to XP in order to use some new software.
Note that I don't think OS upgrades are necessarily a bad thing - in fact they're usually a *good* thing. The problem that I have with the newer versions of Windows is all of the crap that MS is slipping in behind the scenes. Sure, I'll buy a new OS with better stability (they've come a long way since Win98) better multimedia capabilities built-in to the OS, etc. Forced DRM, product activation, "Trusted" computing, and gestapo paperwork checks in order to download patches? No thanks. Hopefully by the time XP is no longer supported, I'll be able to do everything I need to on Linux.
[javac] 100 errors
You don't need URM [DRM] to prevent deletion of "core windows files". Plus, XP already does it..
And URM [DRM] isn't responsible for "annoying extra layers" during the deletion of recipes. That is the purview of MessageBox calls in Explorer. URM [DRM] prevents you from doing things at all, and let's face it; the prospect of losing control is never a welcomed thing, especially for an old person.
I got a free copy of the business edition, and I installed it over XP Pro 64bit. To be honest, it runs much more quickly than XP 64 (less CPU usage, programs appear to start more quickly).
However, Microsoft did a presentation here on Vista, and I have to disagree with a lot of their reasoning for "improvements." Users want more security, and, in my opinion, UAC is more annoyance than security.
Our presenter said the new start menu and search came from research that said most people use their keyboard to move around choosing programs, not the mouse. Ok, the search feature IS nice. However, if you do use your mouse on the start menu (and most people I know do use the mouse here, sadly), its harder to use than the menu in XP. My favorite thing when it comes to this, is that everywhere, Bill Gates has said that everyone will be blown away by the Vista Search the moment it comes out of the box. My computer is basically a brand new top of the line system, and it took it 12+ hours to index my almost empty hard drive. While it is doing this, it gives you a message telling you to try the search later. So much for it working immediately out of the box.
Now, one place I have to give Vista props is the look. Vista looks nice overall; I didn't know my $30 graphics card could show images that crisp. Aero isn't bad either.
Vista has not crashed yet. The only problem I've had is with Visual Studio 2005; it likes to complain a lot, but it runs.
Anyway, those are my two cents on Vista. I had no idea if I'd like it, but its honestly not half bad. I'll still stick with my MacBook Pro for most stuff, though.
This is the second time I've heard this figure cited on Slashdot and I have no idea where it's coming from. I call bullshit. Here is the Task Manager of my Vista system running idle. This is a 3.4GHz single-core P4 system (with HyperThreading, hence the two CPU meters), with 2GB RAM and an nVidia 6600 with 256MB. I have Aero enabled and this screen shows the system with several processes running, including Thunderbird and the Windows Media Center services.
The only thing I can guess is that a lot of the people who are reporting outrageous system demands from Vista are running to check the performance meters right after the system boots. (Just because you can move the mouse doesn't mean it's done yet.)
Breakfast served all day!
He meant, User Access Control or whatever it's called.
That's not the DRM aspect of the OS. If it weren't so stupidly intrusive (or so I've heard), then yes it would be great for grandma.
Damn, you beat me to it AC. Beowolf is an architecture of using a server node to manage (usually) multiple processing nodes to "maximize the speed" of processing using commodity HARDWARE, There is no particular "Beowolf" software.
I've been running Vista since the RTM was released. I'm running Vista Ultimate x86. I have a dual core AMD Athlon system on an Nforce4 motherboard with 2 gigs of RAM. I'm not interested in trying betas or release clients at this point in my life, I've got more important things to do with my time. So when the RTM came out, I decided to use it on my primary workstation in a dual boot environment. I have nothing good to say about Vista actually - and lots negative. I use my workstation for the following things:
1) Email, web surfing, word processing - all the basics.
2) Video editing with tools like Adobe After Effects, VirtualDub, DivX, etc.
3) Web development - I have a version of ColdFusion dev installed, which is supposed to work with IIS.
4) Database development - SQL Server 2005.
5) Local network administration for the windows network here in the office - Active Directory, Exchange management, etc.
6) Linux server management, I only need an SSH client here.
7) Backup DVDs to either my iPod or for backups for our car.
While I may not be the prototypical end user, I think most of the stuff I do would be common and stuff that Microsoft would make sure was ready - ESPECIALLY their own tools. Here is a list of the tools that don't work are aren't stable on Vista:
1) Exchange 2003 System Manager, won't even install. It uses IIS6 for some stupid reason, and IIS7 (despite what it says) is not backwards compatible.
2) Active Directory - as a result of no Exchange tools, you don't get the exchange based tabs to administer basic email properties of user accounts. M$'s solution is to RDP to a server. Nice.
3) Windows Live Messenger - crashes all the time, mostly when you go to exit the program. It's annoying as hell.
4) SQL Server 2005 - You get a warning when it installs about how it won't work, but I did it anyway. It's mostly functional, but you still have the occasional system freeze, etc. Good times.
5) Since none of my 3rd party DVD making apps seem to want to work with vista, I tried Windows Movie Maker. After opening a raw avi movie file straight from my video camera, movie maker decided it didn't want to work. It just hung and after a failed attempt to kill it with task manager, I had to reboot. I tried again with exactly the same results. WTF?
And those are just the Microsoft products that don't work, which seems completely idiotic to me. You would think with an OS in development for 5 years, you'd iron some of that shit out with your own software. Now for the 3rd party apps:
1) Nero - I use it for CD and DVD burning like everybody else. For whatever reason, everytime I move my mouse over an mpeg or avi file in windows I get a RunDLL32 stop error and windows freaks out. This only happens after installing Nero. I'm running the latest verison as well, straight from Nero.com as of yesterday. If you do anything with videos, windows throws up these errors. Makes video editing impossible.
2) iTunes 7.0.2 - basically, nothing about iTunes works for more than 5 minutes. You can't burn cds, so that's bad. Then if you leave it open for 5 minutes, eventually the user interface freaks out and starts blinking in parts and removes the colors, etc. Then if you minimize it, you'll never get it back without restarting or manually killing it with task manager.
3) Firefox - about one out of every 10 times I open up Firefox, I get the blue screen of death with a MEMORY_MANAGEMENT error. This only happens on one of the workstations I put Vista on, the other doesn't have this same issue despite the fact that it's the same hardware exactly. Very strange.
4) Nvidia drivers - using the latest nvidia drivers from their website as of yesterday, my machine becomes completely unstable. Windows Explorer crashes every so often. I had to roll back to the default microsoft drivers for my Geforce 7600GS.
Now if all that isn't bad enough and reason to stay away, here are my gripes about the OS itself:
1) It's slow as he
Show me what Linux can do for a business, and I'll show you how Microsoft does it 20 times better.
My business is molecular modeling.
I need to do a lot of coding in C, C++, F77, and F90, along with some csh, ksh, bash, and perl scripting. I need to test the same code on my PC that runs on the 128-way SMP boxes in the high-performance computing facility, so I need compilers that support a POSIX-ish C api and MPICH, and I'll also need good (scriptable) connectivity ala ssh, scp, and rsync. Oh yeah, one of the data centers uses Kerberos. I also need reasonable data analysis tools like Matlab (though Octave will do in a pinch) and Maple. I need visualization tools like PyMOL, viewmol, vaspview, and GaussView, but also an X server so I can run beefier packages like Cerius2 directly off the big machines. I need to be able to write both small reports for quick printing and large (50+ page) papers with lots of mathematical formulas and endnotes/footnotes, and of course I need to output PDF. I also need virtual desktops to keep my workflow organized: desktop 1 is development, desktop 2 is remote terminals, desktop 3 is data analysis, and desktop 4 is general purpose desktop. Finally, I need to be able to back up my work easily, preferably with just a simple file copy, and all of my file formats will need to readable for 20+ years.
So far my needs are met at near zero cost with Debian Linux plus two commercial packages (GaussView and Maple). I have ssh, scp, rsync, perl, csh, ksh, bash, gcc/g++, g77, gfortran, MPICH, MPICH2, X11, LaTeX, Emacs, Octave, KMail, and OOo. And as a nice bonus with Debian my PC both plays DVDs (and ignores the UOP flag allowing me to skip directly to the menu) and browses the 'Net with ease, and so far I have had no problems with viruses.
I'm very interested in how a Microsoft solution will be 20 times better. Please tell us more!
What's pegging your CPU at 30% is the rendering of the clock gadget. Sounds silly, but try turning it off (only the round clock gadget, not the whole gadget sidebar) and see the difference. Looks like it has something to do with IE7 rotating the clock hands images each second.
No... I think there's some confusing language in the introduction of that article. Vista will support OpenGL ICD's and nVidia and ATI are already working on these. Apparently there was some question about the issue at first, but this is now old news from almost a year ago. I think what the article meant was that currently nVidia and ATI do not have the vista drivers for it. Correct me if I'm off base on this one, but that's how I read it.
In OS memory testing is mostly useless in my experience.
1) You have to boot up your system to use it. Much of the time I've seen bad RAM, your system won't boot as the OS uses too much of said bad RAM.
2) If your system has had a virus and/or the OS is corrupted, you're not really isolating the problem as you're still testing the OS + hardware.
I've found Memtest 86 to be a better solution since (1) uses its own OS (freeDos, very small memory footprint, so it WILL boot) (2) doesn't rely on the system having on OS so it can be used with system corruption/viruses/with a hard drive (if you're building a system) and (3) is free (can download/use on as many systems as you own without needing to buy an OS license to check you memory)
Why is the Vista tool so good again? (Am I missing something?)
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
exactly, sudo su or sudo bash will (depending on the configuration of your machine) allow you to open a bash session with root privileges but you can't log in as root. No telnet, no ssh, no console, nada. Yes you can still single user mode it, but that's it.
It is HIGHER security than usual root login because you now have to know the username and password of a user that has sudo access, not just the password of root, and scripts can't be run by accident as easily as before. Mind you you still have to be careful who you give sudo access to, but at least it is safer to give sudo to 5 people than giving out the root password to 5 people.
Because it isn't. I can't believe people are literally lying through their teeth about that.
They are reporting that Vista is incompatible with virtually every online game out there. They go on to add that for the most part all in-pace device drivers today will not run on Vista either nor do working drivers exist nor will ever exist for most 'older' hardware. They conclude that much 'older' software will never be made to work or work right either.
Now you have to understand that CNBC has been a MS corporate cheerleader from way back. Now I understand why Bill Himself has been pimping this out on TV personally. This looks like it could be a hellacious scary train crash.
Hooray troll feeding:
From 10.2 to 10.3 was quite a leap, not a mere upgrade, as was from 10.3 to 10.4, which added metadata, better internal databases, more core functions, spotlight, dashboard, etc... By all intents and purposes a major release. Yes, the GUI is pretty much the same (albeit slightly more schizophrenic), and the actual user experience is pretty much the same, but that is somewhat the point, not having to relearn an OS every new version, keep it similar. And no, 10.3->10.4 does not equal an upgrade, its just how Apple's branding works (yes, I do think its idiotic). Think of 10.4 as OS 14, if you want.
10.5, on the other hand, seems mightily like an upgrade, adding software features, and not decent internal features. Sure versioning is nice, yes virtual desktops are good to finally have native on a non-KDE/Gnome desktop. But there is nothing as big as, say, Spotlight.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
When I'm setting up a new system, I hate using sudo for a ton of commands and would rather have access to a root shell while I'm first setting up a computer or when I'm setting up a new application.
There is an easy fix for this. If you've got a bunch of stuff to do as root, just use "sudo su -", and boom, you've got a root shell. Just remember to CTRL-D [or run 'exit'] when you're done.
Not that either method is any better than the other, but you don't have to type 'sudo' before each command, and it still keeps the root account locked.
Nothing to see here
Summary: 10% more usable OS. 35% more usable Office.
I upgraded a Compaq Z2615US 14" notebook (Semtron 1.8ghz, 128mb ATI 200M video, 1GB RAM) to Vista Business 32bit.
Aero Eye candy aside, I feel like I'm making fewer clicks and finding things easier. The sideshow doesn't have any really compelling widgets/gadgets yet (the weather gadget only show the current weather). The system feels more responsive. Had a few software compatibility issues (Visual Studio 2005 and Adobe 8 Reader installer). Office 2007 is simply wonderful. Finding things is much easier and the application seems to load a lot faster than previous versions of MS Office. Office PDF export is a separate download.
I installed a lot of third party stuff like XAMPP Lite, SciTe, Filezilla, Firefox etc without any big problems.
I ordeered the 64bit DVD and will probably reinstall everything when it arrives.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Possible drawbacks:
- OEM versions of Windows (which cost much less than retail) do not get phone/e-mail support from MS. I assume this is not a big deal to Slashdot readres because we should know how to use MS's support web pages, knowledge base, and Microsoft Update. However, it's worth mentioning if you're planning on installing it for a novice friend.
- OEM versions can only be used on one computer and cannot be "moved" to your next computer. MS has been pretty lax on this requirement for XP (just call them and they'll re-activate for you), but I've read that they might be more strict with Vista (I hope not).
- It looks like upgrade versions of Vista will require a previous version to be installed before you can install Vista. Previous to Vista, upgrade versions of Windows only required the user to briefly insert a previous version's CD. If you have a RAID setup, this might mean you need to go through XP's shitty RAID setup before installing Vista (which fixes this RAID issue). Note that, contrary to some news headlines, Vista upgrade versions will allow "clean" installs (format hard drive and start clean).
I'm sure most Slashdot readers would accept the possible OEM drawbacks. The drawbacks of the "upgrade" version of Vista might not be so acceptable. If I was buying now, I'd just get an OEM version of Vista unless they change the "installed previous OS" requirement.TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
While there is nothing else wanting to use the memory, the OS should be using it to cache data, pre-fetch things, and whatever it can use it for to make your use of the system more responsive and pleasant.
As long as the system gives these RAM resources over to an application/game when it's requested for there is NO PROBLEM.
Regarding your CPU, Disk space remark. Only if it makes sense for the system to run these to the max when they could be otherwise running idle. With memory, you use it as a disk cache (data to be written when it is convenient for the system, or data that is read from the disk with the liklihood of it being needed by the system)as it is much faster than a hard drive. Now I know that it has to be read from the hard drive (and/or written to eventually) but the idea is that this will be done when the system can do so conveniently and you (hopefully) will not notice because the system is otherwise idle. This is why programs that are designed to flush memory to the paging file are a bad idea. Let Windows/Linux/whatever manage your RAM.
This is my take on it.
What doesn't make sense is to throw away cached disk pages that are already in memory before you need to. After all, even if there's only a
As long as directed use of any computing resource trumps background use with very little lagtime, and there isn't a power/burnout factor involved, then why do you care what the computer's doing behind your back, as long as the net result is a better/faster/gniftier experience for you, the user? Serious question.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
I've been running Vista at home since pre-Beta 2. When the RTM version surfaced on MSDN in early December, I decided to hold my breath and reinstall using the 64 bit version.
Specs: I'm running a stock Dell box, D620 processor, dual core with 1 gb RAM. Video is ATI X1300 with 256Mb, Dell dual tuner card, no-name Web cam, USB external drive, built-in sound.
To my great surprise, all of my applications and hardware worked fine on 64 bit Vista. There was one minor exception: the SyncToy app from Microsoft would not run. Everything else - Office, Civ 4, Diablo II, WinZip, etc - worked great. Some dev tools did require updates - Visual Studio 2005 and SQL Express both had to be patched, although they seemed to work OK before I installed the patches. There is a 64-bit version of IE, but I don't run it, so I can't speak to plug-in compatibility. Most surprisingly, I haven't had any problems with drivers; even my el cheapo Web cam worked perfectly.
Overall, I like Vista. It looks nice and works well. Programs seem to load faster, probably because of the SuperCache feature that keeps commonly-used stuff in memory. The eye candy is OK, but probably not worth the price of admission - the important thing is that it has been rock solid so far.
Things I like:
- The sidebar is nice, although there aren't many gadgets available yet. The ones that are available look good.
- The OS is very, very stable. No crashes at all in almost two months. No "this program is closing" messages that I recall.
- The anti-spyware package seems to work as advertised. I'm running OneCare 1.5 for antivirus, and that works fine too. No problems with security, although I didn't have any under XP either.
- The new fonts are very nice - especially Consolas, the new fixed-width font. Looks great in Visual Studio.
- Boot time and resume from standby time has been much improved.
- No one seems to be talking about the voice recognition features, but they are awesome. It's possible to start Word, dictate a letter, save it, open Gmail, and mail it to someone using only voice commands. Accuracy is very good, and it's pretty easy to use. This is a killer feature that needs more publicity.
Things I don't like:
- Some of the new utilities are very, very dumbed down. NTBACKUP is gone, replaced by the most brain-dead "backup program" I've ever seen. This program is not backward-compatible, so if you have Windows Backup files, you'll have to download another utility from Microsoft to restore files from them.
- The disk defragmenter is also dumbed down to the point of absurdity. There is no status display at all - no disk block diagram, no percentage indicator - just a "please wait, this operation may take several hours to complete" message. VOPT did this better in 1983.
- Existing CD burning software probably won't work.
- The new search indexer searches only a small subset of the directory tree by default. While it's possibly to manually tweak the list of directories to search, there's no easy way to tell it to, for example, index every directory except those that hold temporary files. Non-index searches (in other words, a full grovel through the directory tree) seem to be slower than in XP.
- There is a "Run" box on the Start menu, but it doesn't work exactly as it used to. I have always used it to launch some programs and Explorer windows, and it still does this in some cases, but - for example - typing "D:" won't take you to the root of your D drive - it brings up the first application it can find that starts with "D". Very annoying.
Other observations:
- The ReadyBoost feature (that allows you to use a USB key as swap space) works, but I didn't notice any speed increase. This was with a very fast USB drive (patriot XT).
- The control panel utilities and desktop properties screens have been moved around quite a bit, which may confuse some people at first, but the new order probably makes more sense than the old one.
- There's a lot of FUD floating a
The ability to use sudo su does not undermine the purpose of eliminating the root password in the first place: to make it inconvenient to operate as root all the time. As long as it is inconvenient to operate as root all the time, the elimination of the root password has its desired effect: keeping you from accidentally screwing up your damn computer, and keeping malicious attackers from accidentally screwing up your damn computer because you took a shortcut.
People will naturally do whatever's easier. Ubuntu and OS X made it easier to operate as non-root than to operate as root; Windows (at least as of XP) makes it easier to operate as root than to operate as non-root. Not surprisingly, people run as root on Windows, as non-root on the other two. Not surprisingly, they don't screw up those systems as often and they aren't as vulnerable to attack.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
They offer support for TPC, and some of the DRM used may insist on a TPC platform, but this is not actually anything to do with Microsoft.
How can you say that with a straight face? They designed the whole TPC specification. It is they who wanted it in the first place.
It is not something that they have begrudgingly decided to "offer support" for as you have attempted to imply.
The fact is that if Microsoft's vision of a rosy DRM future for us all comes to fuition, we could potentially see linux PC's being denied access to large swathes of the internet simply because Microsoft deems them to be "untrustworthy", due to their refusal to comply with Microsoft's DRM requirements.
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
Pretty sure there were midnight madness sales for win95 and win98. I recall tv news stories and newspaper articles about it at the time. What a time to be alive.