Windows Vista - Still Fresh After 19 Months?

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.

Comments

When was Vista launched?

[MMaestro]

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.

Is that the best he can come up with?

[ThePyro]

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...

The Bizaaro World

[rudy_wayne]

"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.

I haven't upgraded everything to XP yet

[L. VeGas]

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.

Am I missing something?

[ADRA]

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.

This jives with my own experience

[Kuciwalker]

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.

Re:19 Months?

[drsmithy]

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.

Vista/Computer/Properties/Advanced/Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

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.