Continue to Site

Welcome to our site!

Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

  • Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Anyone tried Windows Vista? What do you think?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ThermalRunaway

New Member
I recently signed up to beta test Windows Vista, the next-generation version of Windows due to be released in early 2007. I understand that the version of Windows I'm trying is a beta2 version and therefore does have a few bugs (I've already found and reported a few), but it's pretty late into development now so I would think most of the major problems have been ironed out and that basically, the version of Windows I'm running now will be very much like the public version when it comes out with regard to functionality, features and performance.

I have to say that my first impressions of the OS are quite negative. I was hoping that Microsoft would take a long, hard look at their Operating System and finally make the decision to improve on some really poor parts of it. As a rule I'm not a huge fan of Windows, but I do feel it has a lot to offer (especially since XP) and that if only it wasn't so bloated and out-right annoying to use, it'd be a really good system. But having tried Vista over the past week, I've found that not only have they not improved on the things I don't like about Windows, but they seem to have made them worse!!!

One of the things I really hate about Windows is the long start-up and shut-down times. Unless you spend your days continuously un-doing the work of the OS and optimising the startup, you'll find that as you install more programs and more things are done during boot-time, the time taken to startup and shutdown your computer will get longer and longer and longer, until finally it becomes really annoying. I had heard that the new version of Windows would tackle this, and I had even heard that they'd made it so good that you could pretty much turn on your computer and a few seconds later the desktop would appear in all it's glory!!!
Either I heard wrong (perhaps they were talking about starting up from a sleep mode or something) or the beta2 version doesn't have that feature yet, or they've made a right pigs ear of it because even after a fresh install of Vista, with no further programs installed, it takes quite a long time to startup and shutdown. God knows what it'll be like after I've installed all my stuff!!! I'd go as far as to say that the startup time seems to be even longer in Vista than it is now on XP (these are first impressions of course).

One of my other real bug-bears with Windows is the sheer size of the thing. It's so ridiculously bloated that even simple tasks can grind to a halt if other things are going on in the background. My computer isn't the fastest in the world, but it's certainly no slouch and yet the performance can be made to look pretty bad if you start asking XP to do multiple things at a time. Certainly, compared to a good Operating System (and a good OS should never be bloated), I think it's fair to say XP performs quite badly in this respect.
Guess what? Vista seems to be even WORSE!!! All the windows are animated and there's all kinds of swirly patterns and things going on in the background, and even the progress bar for file tasks has a kind of star-trek style animation going on with it. Of course you can turn all of that off, which I have done, but it's still noticeably less responsive than XP was. And bloat, you've never seen anything like it. After a fresh install, Vista had consumed 15GB of my HD. I understand that 15GB is not very much when compared to the Hard Drives currently available on the market, but still the whole OS feels very bloated and claustrophobic so I'm not really too impressed in this area either. Infact, if this is how the end-user version is going to turn out I think I'll probably end up sticking with XP.

Call me paranoid, but Vista wouldn't let me install Firefox - it responded with a complaint that it couldn't complete the operation because of an unknown error. Is this on purpose?!?!?!

Let's hope that Vista Beta2 still has a few problems and a few features not implemented that will improve on the performance. Otherwise we'll all have to upgrade our machines again, and mine's not even a year old!!!

Brian
 
I haven't tried Vista though I do echo your concerns about XP. We've heard it all before every time M$ releases a new version of Winwoes they always say that it'll be better than the last, they spend billions on marketing it (even more than developing it) and it never is that much better. I don't see why Vista will be any different than XP, yes there are some enhancements in XP though it isn't much better than 2000, it certainly isn't worth the money upgrading to anyway.

I've experimented with the main alternative OS, Linux and it's quite good but it does have a steaper learning curve and getting it to work with some printers and other hardwareware can be a problem. This is because the M$-monoculture has encouraged companies to develop their hardware and software around Winwoes so it often doesn't work too well with other OSes. M$ are just plain bad for the computer industry because they dominate it and have a virtual monopoly so there's very little competition, they've only managed to do it so well by aggressive pushing of thier products and using vendor lock-in so people are forced to keep using thier software.

My advice to you is to not upgrade to Vista, with a bit of luck XP is their last OS, it certainly will be Vista's biggest competitor so carry on using it for as long as you can. Even if some commercial software stops supporting it most free software will carry on supporting it for as long as eight of even nine years for example both OpenOffice.org and Firefox still run on Windows 98 even though M$ have stopped supporting it.
 
When a new vesion if windows is released i still act like its beta for a year becsue they need quite some time to fix "all" the bugs.When XP came out it was very ustableb ut now its good.
 
I still find XP quite unstable. The only difference I find between XP and previous versions of Windows is that now when a crash happens, the OS is able to contain it and limit the damage to the closing of an application, where as in previous versions a crash would normally mean the "blue screen of death" where the whole system goes down.

I have found that because XP is able to contain crashes to the applications which were involved in it (the application may not necessarily have caused it as XP may have done that!), much less inconvenience is caused and therefore people don't remember the crashes so much. As a result people say XP crashes less, but I don't think it does - it just causes much less inconvenience when it crashes is all!

Brian
 
Last edited:
Actually I'll take part of that back. I think "unstable" is the wrong word to use, because XP doesn't crash applications often enough for me to call it unstable. I only meant to say that crashes still happen in XP, as they did in previous versions but the consequences are not as bad.

Brian
 
XP is more stable than previous versions for me too, but it depends on what other versiouns you've used, 3.1 was pretty bad, so was 95, then 98 was better and ME was total crap. 2000 and XP are different to the previous versions because they're NT based but the former like all other NT versions wasn't targeted at the home user, for that there was ME. 3.1 sat directly on top of MS-DOS, then when MS released 95 they decided to integrate it with DOS so they became one product, I suppose this was to eliminate competition from DR-DOS.

Someone Electro said:
When a new vesion if windows is released i still act like its beta for a year becsue they need quite some time to fix "all" the bugs.When XP came out it was very ustableb ut now its good.
Which is pretty crappy no software vendor should expect people to pay for betaware, that's just disgusting!
 
Hero999 said:
Which is pretty crappy no software vendor should expect people to pay for betaware, that's just disgusting!

Hmmm I have to sympathise there Hero999. Windows is a HUGE product, and certainly with XP it was quite a big step from previous versions (most people went from ME or earlier to XP). With such a huge product as WindowsXP, the only way to fully test it's abilities in all kinds of different situations, is to put it out there and get the public - in their millions - to use it. To their defense, Microsoft have tackled as many "bugs" as possible, as soon as they became apparent. They've attempted to tackle security issues as soon as they became apparent as well.

I think that the most you can hope for when you purchase a software product is that the company who sold it to you will be there to support it for the long term if problems come to light. I think it's fair to say Microsoft have spent a lot of time and money doing that!

That's the trouble with software - especially on that kind of scale. There are so many people involved in so many different things that it can never be completely bug-free. You can only ever hope to put a product out there which is as useable as possible and support the bugs that end-users report as quickly as you possibly can.

Brian
 
Hmm, so MS has progressed from where the OS used to just go $ init 0 to where you can selectively choose $ kill -9 xxxx , progress I guess.

Sorry, couldn't resist, LOL. Yes I run XP, and have run everything from the begginings, well, except ME, that was just plain wrong.
 
ThermalRunaway said:
Hmmm I have to sympathise there Hero999. Windows is a HUGE product, and certainly with XP it was quite a big step from previous versions (most people went from ME or earlier to XP).
I see your point, but then when I compare it to other software and think about how much money M$ have I don't think they have any excuse. Firsty, just think about how much a copy of Winwoes sells for and how much it actually costs to make in raw materials, sure the development cost it high but when you think about how many billions copies they sell they could cover that by selling it for as little as £5. I've used Protel at work and it's a huge program and when you think about how big it is and how much smaller the company who makes it is compared to M$ and how it has less bugs than thier software. Mozilla don't make nearly as much money as Microsoft, and compare how few bugs and vunerabilaties Firefox to Internet Explorer. Sorry this doesn't was with me, M$ have more than enough money to fix Winwoes but it isn't thier priority, marketing is. Linux is also better than Winwoes apart from the fact that most hardware and software companies don't support it.
 
Last edited:
My opinion on Windows:

It's just...all wrong. Everything is convoluted and contorted. I've had programs uninstall themselves through Windows. I guess it's not windows related, but I have a Win98 box that'll wipe the hard drive when I try to install Firefox. When I open Internet Explorer 11 seperate spyware/tracking instances are created. And as for compatibility, forget it. I can read Mac and PC disks on my Mac, but my windows box, no way. "Sorry, but you can't read Mac formatted Zip disks." Great.

We got a new Mac (after almost ten years - yes the old one is still running fine and is used for image editing and web surfing) - it's so easy to use. I sat down and started doing stuff/setting it up, and my dad asked me "how do you know how to do all of this?" and I replied "because it's easy and right in front of me. I don't have to hunt for drivers, I don't have to use workarounds, it just works."

The beauty of a Mac. (yeah it's a shameless plug but it's quarter after two in the morning here...I'm a bit tired.)
 
A friend of mine tried the beta version, we are both radio hams, and all I ever heard from him was how has computer had crashed again.............

I use XP and that is crap, so all I can say is: GOD HELP US WHEN THE NEW ONE COMES OUT..........................

I NEVER had to update windows 98SE, it was a good OS......... Why oh why dose Gates think he knows better than millions of other people
 
a new windows (the longest period between releases btw) and a new host of problems.

The big # things that were suppose to entice users were

1) stability: They have been saying this since 95 "this version of windows is the most stable" but on release they are less stable then what they are replacing until at least SP2. Take when XP came out against 2000

2) Security: So we have to pay for this now? it is their responsibility to fix their damb buggy code!!! equally they have always said at a new release that this is the most secure windows yes. I again cite XP over 2000 (w.r.t. MSblast esp)

3) WinFS. Now this did look interesting (although Linux has been running Beagle for quite a while now) but this not only got postponed until after vista release BUT it has now been scrapped

4) DRM: Ha they are pushing this as beneficial to the User, what they do not say is the corporate locking that results. look at Apple iPod if you have bought any tunes from iTunes you are not only stupid (paying for 1/3 of the product they sample at 128k/s) but you are now forced to stick with apple products if you have to replace yr ipod. The same is true with the new gen of DVD's and it is already happening.


Equally a French company recently got find a lot because they d/l a digital track from a competitor and broke the DRM so they could sell it. YES they were guilty and deserve to be fined but they said they do not mind this, they were doing what is best for the customer. Warner made an EXCLUSIVE deal with this one distributor so if you wanted that product you had to buy it from them, cost stays high and you are locked in to their playing methods.
DRM does not stop piracy (there is always mic by speakers or video infront of TV) It is ment to control who you buy from
NOTE THIS EVERYONE!!! You are about to be faced with a choice of loosing control of what you bought


5) 3D desktop: ooo perty but not that perty. Linux as Xgl and it is a lot better.Aero needs cutting-edge hardware (GFX cards as well) but Xgl (which does what Aero does and more!!!) runs on cards that are now 5years old and very well!!!


So what does Vista give? A re-skinned XP and the “need” to do a major PC upgrade for this! and that Is all. With MS about to be hit with a $1.4billion dollar fine by the EU expect the price of Vista to reflect this!

All in all it really isn’t worth it esp with all the security concerns

Linux!!! Ubuntu is extreamly easy to install (easier then XP) and easy to use.
Yes the guts of Linux is “different” and has a learning curve but just using the desktop is fantasically easy! EAGLE has a linux client that runs great.
Hardware support isn’t as bad as it sounds
 
Styx said:
4) DRM: Ha they are pushing this as beneficial to the User, what they do not say is the corporate locking that results. look at Apple iPod if you have bought any tunes from iTunes you are not only stupid (paying for 1/3 of the product they sample at 128k/s) but you are now forced to stick with apple products if you have to replace yr ipod. The same is true with the new gen of DVD's and it is already happening.
Their should be a law against vendor lock-in, all file formats should be made public!


Styx said:
Linux!!! Ubuntu is extreamly easy to install
Linux is great and easy to both install and use until you get some unusal hardware, then you need to jump through many hoops to get it to work and that's if you're lucky!
 
Well, just to keep you all updated on how I'm doing with Vista, here's where I'm at.
I've tried to keep an open mind and I think I've done a good job of doing that, but I made the decision yesterday to discontinue testing Vista on the basis that it's way too slow, over crowded and claustrophobic. It's extremely irritating to use for a number of reasons (and I'm ignoring the bugs when I make that opinion), and after all the hassle I just don't feel that it offers me anything that I can't do already with my current XP install. So it's gone, and I don't think I'll be buying it when it comes out either.

If anyone else is wondering whether to jump on the band-wagon and buy it, be prepared for the prospect of upgrading your computer, be prepared to find out that it doesn't really offer you any more than you've already got, and most of all make sure you try it first - I'm glad I did!

By the way, 3D desktop seems to be nothing more than a rubbish gimmick. It doesn't actually improve your desktop browsing experience, nor does it make you more productive. What it does do, is hog all of your computer's performance for itself - which goes against the very definition of an Operating System in the first place!

So that's that for me!

Brian
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

New Articles From Microcontroller Tips

Back
Top