Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows Vista - Still Fresh After 19 Months?

Posted by Zonk on from the long-term-houseguest dept.

MyStuff writes "ZDNet blog Hardware 2.0 looks at the effect of having used Windows Vista for over 18 months. It Windows Vista the indispensable upgrade that Microsoft wants you to think it is? Writer Kingsley-Hughes says 'Having been using Vista for over 18 months I believe that it's a huge improvement over XP and even though I still use XP I find that I miss many of the features that Vista offers.' Just the same, he goes on, 'I wouldn't call any of the changes earth-shattering. When I'm using XP systems I miss some of the features but not so much that they push me to upgrade any faster.' He then goes on to give a feature-by-feature breakdown of all of the improvements Vista has over XP, and what long-term use of these features can net." A possibly useful guide for gamers or administrators thinking about upgrading sometime soon.

14 of 334 comments (clear)

  1. When was Vista launched? by MMaestro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not counting the "beta" versions given to special corporations and colleges, I don't think its fair to judge Vista just yet. Asking if Windows Vista is still "fresh" after 19 months is like asking if the PS3 is still "fresh" after 12 months.

  2. Re:You've got to be kidding me... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Nah, I just turned on all the flashy crap in XP, changed the background image, took some memory out of my box and clocked down the CPU. Then broke Media player. Works like a charm."

    True. When my WinXP laptop stops being able to use software, the only upgrade I'll be doing is finally switching to either Linux, BSD, or a Mac at that point.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  3. Is that the best he can come up with? by ThePyro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article:

    From an efficiency point of view, Vista beats XP hands down...It's the small things that make the difference - the improved Start Menu...

    Maybe it's just me, but I hardly use the Start Menu. I assign keyboard shortcuts to all my commonly used applications. I might go digging around in the Start Menu a couple times a week, but's hardly a reason to change operating systems.

    ...improved search...

    Is that really a huge efficiency boost? I use Windows Search even less than I use the Start Menu. It's very rare that I don't know where to find something on my own machine. Does anyone else use the Search function that often? For what are you typically searching?

    the larger, more detailed icons (which are a real eye saver if you run at screen resolutions of 1280 x 1024 and above)

    Yikes! Large icons are the first thing I usually turn off. What a waste of screen space. Once again, is this really a huge efficiency boost?

    So in conclusion, "beats XP hands down" translates to two features I'd never use, and larger icons that I'll want to turn off. Think I'll wait a bit...

    1. Re:Is that the best he can come up with? by archen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > the larger, more detailed icons (which are a real eye saver if you run at screen resolutions of 1280 x 1024 and above)

      Yikes! Large icons are the first thing I usually turn off. What a waste of screen space. Once again, is this really a huge efficiency boost?


      Actually I find the icons are making vista harder to use. If you look at the control panel in "classic mode", it looks like a jumbled together collage of shiny garbage. Many of the system program icons should utilize either extremely simple representations of things (the old "my computer" icon for instance), or general symbols. When you look at traffic signs, you don't see an actual picture of a windy road, you see a squiggly line representing one. Another examle is the quickstart bar where I have windows explorer, show the desktop, and the view all windows 3d effect thing. The icons all look like shiny blue screens with just a hint of something different that has hardly any correlation to what does (or it's way to small in the icon to really see without significant study).
    2. Re:Is that the best he can come up with? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I too wrote my own Search tool.
      Windows search just didn't give me what I wanted and to make matters worse it didn't even try to search the files I wanted it to search. I knew totally that specific files contained exact string matches (it was vb code) but yet the search didn't touch them.

      I initially started by finding out how and why and what to do with it, in the end I created a scanner which assigned each unknown file extension currently located on my system the default text scanning clsid), and still run this occasionally so I am not restricted by random uses of the global search.

      This still wasn't enough because Windows will not show the context of a match or allow multiple patterns and filters to the parameters, mine displays the exact line match of anything found along with a little context (project.file.proc.line)

      As for storing a large cache away, scanning the filenames and properties of a large deeply nested drive takes approx 20seconds (longer for the first scan before windows builds up any kind of cache).
      Of course if you have large folders containing 1000s of files each, this could be quicker but I am somewhat sceptical of your timings.
      It takes even longer if you are scanning the contents of files as well but from the sounds of things you aren't.
      I don't actually mind waiting for the search to finish as long as I know it is searching the correct data I have asked it to.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  4. The Bizaaro World by rudy_wayne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "even though I still use XP I find that I miss many of the features that Vista offers."

    I find this comment quite bizaare. After using Vista for nearly 2 months, my experience is exactly the opposite. I find Vista frustrating because many features from XP have been removed or changed in ways that make them less useful. There are no major problems with Vista, but dozens of minor annoyances. Each one by itself is no big deal, but together they add up to a major step backward.

  5. I haven't upgraded everything to XP yet by L.+VeGas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't get it.

    Between work and home I have two Win2000 boxes and two XP boxes (and a Redhat as well). I remember still running NT when XP was introduced.

    Unless you have an application that can't be run on an older system, and by then you usually need a newer computer anyway, is upgrading really worth the hassle? A workstation for me becomes like an old pet. You're used to it. You know how what its quirks are.

    Personally, I've never felt a compelling reason to upgrade. I like shiny toys as well as the next person, but I have never upgraded a Windows OS in my life.

    --
    Best Windows Freeware
  6. Am I missing something? by ADRA · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looks like I'll stick it out with Win2k, nothing interesting here =)

    Reboots: I reboot my 2k media PC once a month maybe

    GUI: I still can't find a person that can point out why XP was so much better than 2000. If you can convince me, please do. There just aren't any productivity advances that I can see. The article author pointed out the vast productivity benefits from the start menu, but honestly, if you're spending more than 1% of your time in the start menu you're not being productive period.

    I think everyone who upgrades and claims it substantially better are under self-hypnosis. The 'beautiful graphics' are deluding you into believing the OS is so much better. If Microsoft had updated their driver compatibility layer like they did in XP, I don't think there'd be a single justification to ever buy XP. But like I said, I dare the community to say differently. Give me a reason to enter graphics country!

    Price: How much for media center edition? Ouch.

    --
    Bye!
  7. This jives with my own experience by Kuciwalker · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I've been running Vista for a few weeks now and, on the whole, it's similar to XP but noticeably better. Most of the enhancements I've noticed are little things, mostly interface improvements, that combined just make the system easier to use. A particular example: in XP if you select a file and then click again on the name (or hit F2) it selects the filename and lets you edit it. What's slightly irritating is that it selects the file name *and* extension. In Vista it only highlights the name, so when I'm renaming several .doc files it ends up saving a LOT of clicks or keystrokes. As the auther mentioned, the larger icons are nice for high-resolution screens. Meh. The power management center is a lot better and simpler to use - I unplug my laptop and in two clicks I'm in low power mode. The per-application audio mixer is handy. Indexed search is nice, but you can get the same thing in XP with Google Desktop. Lots and lots of little things that really improve the UI taken together.

    Complaints:

    For some reason they fucked up the defragmenter and now it's just a big "defrag my hard drive now!" button with no progress indicator or something to show how fragmented your disk is (this *really* pisses me off). Startup/shutdown time is better, but hibernate/sleep is a problem - when I come out of them it doesn't remember I have a second monitor, and I have to reboot to get it back. Thus, they're mostly pointless.

    Surprisingly it runs a little faster on my notebook than XP did, I assume because of the caching (2GB RAM) and Aero offloading stuff to the GPU.

    All in all, I wouldn't want to go back, but I don't know it's worth the hassle of upgrading for everyone. Especially since not all software works quite right yet. YMMV.

  8. Re:You've got to be kidding me... by supaneko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thank you. I will second you on this. I almost fell for the Vista upgrade "experience" but after hearing of the dreadful "security enhancements" added to Vista, I'll stick to XP.

    I just hope that Apple doesn't go the way of Microsoft and implement DRM in their OS. Rumors lately seem to point to Apple wanting to that, despite Steve Jobs saying he's against DRM.

    --
    Less-geeky computer repair alternative for Lansing, MI
  9. Re:19 Months? by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He doesn't even honestly talk about the draconian nightmarish DRM infections in Vista.

    Probably because, like 99% of people, he'll never, ever have to worry about them.

    No way am I going to relinquish my computer rights to Microsoft and the pathetic content providers.

    Then don't use DRM encumbered media. Whether or not you are using Vista is irrelevant.

  10. Even Larger icons???? Are developers on drugs? by Adeptus_Luminati · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Will somebody please tell Microsoft to STOP WASTING MY F****** SCREEN SPACE!!!!!! I want smaller icons... MUCH smaller, not bigger ones.

    First thing I did in XP is convert everything to windows classic mode due to slightly smaller icons on screen, start menus & control panel, same with fonts. On a side rant, I am also not impressed at all with LCD screens that run at very lame fixed resolutions.

    Due to all of this, I had to recently spend $1,000 on a Samsung 24" LCD screen that would run 1920x1200 just so I could recover some of the screen space I used to have back in Windows 95 running on a 19" CRT at 1600x1200. My CRT finally died after 7 long years and no computer store was selling 21" CRTs anymore *cry*

    My recent forced upgrade at work from Outlook 2001 to 2003 also kind of ticked me off as Microsoft loves to waste my screen space and make just about every row FATTER than ever before.
    The control panel in windows XP even in classic mode is a complete waste of screen space. Also run the Services icon and you can see what I am talking about.

    Yo Microsoft, make your graphic shit smaller, not bigger. Or fine make it bigger, but also give us 20/20 vision people the option to use smaller icons, fonts etc - MUCH smaller.

    Thanks, and asta-la-vista.

    Adeptus

    --
    No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
  11. Vista/Computer/Properties/Advanced/Performance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In Vista:
    If you Pull up the Start Menu, All Programs, right click on Computer, Select Properties, Then Advanced Features, then Performance, Selecting Optimize for Best Performance, and Hit Apply:

    All the 'Vista' stuff gets turned off,
    You get normal square windows aka - Windows 3.1 type windows.
    All Vista & Windows XP eye candy is turned off.

    So, You too, in order to get maximum performance,
    can buy a new Windows Vista computer,
    and optimize it for a personal Windows 3.1 experience!

    This Baffles Retail Store PC people,
    they think you reinstalled a different Windows.

  12. Talking about graphical improvements... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    At my workplace people started to talk about upgrading to Vista, so I showed them my Ubuntu box with Beryl and some nice (and useful) effects, and they're happyly running Linux now.
    You may not take in huge consideration eye candy and graphical effects, but modern Linux desktops beat Windows (XP, Vista, whatever) hands down in all respects.