Vista RC1: looks good but boots s-l-o-w...

David Flynn04 September 2006, 6:55 AM

After more cosmetic surgery than Michael Jackson, Vista enters the final mile of the marathon with Release Candidate 1. Overall the build feels much faster to use, but boot time is still lagging XP by a long way.


Unveiled over the weekend, Windows Vista RC1 comes barely two weeks after Microsoft's release of the pre-RC1 build 5536 - which was in itself an impressive 'interim build' that by all rights could just as easily have been dubbed Beta 3.

Indeed, you've got to look very hard to detect the differences. Most of the changes take place under the hood - Microsoft says that its tossed more device drivers into the pot, along with tweaking performance. We can vouch for the later: pretty much everything you do in Vista RC1 is snappier and more responsive than previous milestone builds.

However, boot time remains the same finger-drumming minute-long snoozefest as previous builds. We loaded a standard Vista Ultimate RC1 installation onto a 1.7GHz Pentium M system with 512MB of RAM (ie, a typical off-the-shelf system for today's mainstream users) and clocked 56 seconds from cold boot to the desktop.

Likewise, the upgrade from XP to Vista RC1 is also painfully slow, if you choose to go down that path. It took over two hours on one relatively beefy PC at APC - a dual-core Dell (Pentium D with 2GB RAM).

We can only hope that RC1 is weighed down with massive (and we mean massive) chunks of bug trapping code in the start-up stage which, when removed from the final build, will slash start time to at least one-third of what RC1 delivers.

For what it's worth, once you're sitting at a dormant desktop Vista lists its physical memory usage in the vicinity of 250MB, with 60MB being sucked up by background processes. Load up a bunch of apps like Photoshop, several Word documents, several Excel docs, Windows Media Player and Outlook 2003, and RAM usage soars up to over 1GB (with 140MB being used by the Kernel) Much of this is probably Vista's pre-emptive application caching kicking into action.

Poking around the rest of RC1 we found the help system is almost done, with far fewer placeholders and dead ends. For example, pictured below is a complete help page for User Account Control, where previously builds were littered with instances of "insert help text here".

vista-help.jpg

If you missed out on the pre-RC edition then you'll immediately notice Vista's glossier icons, especially for shell folders (such as documents, pictures and music).

From the earliest Longhorn builds to RC1, Vista's icons have undergone more cosmetic surgery than Michael Jackson. Maybe the UI designers have finally done fiddling. They do look cleaner than the previous icons, though, lessening the visual confusion in Explorer, which is welcome.

vista-shell-icons.jpg

If your most recent experience of Vista was with Beta 2 or the 5456 or 5472 refresh editions, RC1 is well worth hunting down. It shows Vista is making progress in confident strides rather than awkward stumbles as it nears the finish line.

For example, upgrading from XP now works much better than before. If you had Windows Desktop Search installed on XP, Vista cleanly uninstalls it and rebuilds indexes using its own inbuilt desktop search. In a recent build (5472), Vista left Windows Desktop Search installed but in a non-working state.

Niggling problems still remaining

That said, this build may be a "release candidate", but it's still not yet ready for release.

Some of the problems APC observed when upgrading from XP to this build included none of our network printers being correctly upgraded, with apps reporting that no printers were installed. A quick look at the printers control panel showed they were there, but were stuck on "needs driver upgrade" status. (Microsoft has provided a menu item that upgrades the drivers with one click. Given the ease of upgrading, we hope this is handled as part of the upgrade process in future builds.)

Another problem was that Outlook 2003 couldn't access any PST files we had stored on an external drive. This appears to be a problem with the User Account Protection in Vista, because once we modified the security properties on those files to explicitly add our user account, we could open them again.

Vista required us to uninstall Nero completely before it would go ahead with installation, an issue we've covered previously.

RC1 is likely to be followed by at least one additional Release Candidate (most previous Windows OS releases go through two or three RC builds; for example, XP lived through two RC editions while Windows 2000 notched up three) before the codebase receives the blessing of St Bill.


Post your comment



First 50 Comments

View All Comments (65) RSS feed Email alert

Tin:

Snoozfest booting at only 1 minute, eh? You obviously never used Win2K.
Oh, and XP can take over 5 minutes to boot sometimes on my desktop (athlon64 X2, 1G RAM, ie. not an old box).

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

James:

While a '1.7GHz Pentium M system with 512MB of RAM' may be a 'typical off-the-shelf system for today’s mainstream users' I don't think it's fair to judge Vistas boot time on this system. Firstly this is obviously a laptop and so is going to be much slower than a 'typical off-the-shelf *desktop* system for today’s mainstream users'.

Secondly the '1.7GHz Pentium M system with 512MB of RAM' is just scraping in at the minimum requirements for Vista (as I'm sure you are aware), with a more resonable system (such as the Pentium D described) with at least 1GB of RAM I'm confident that the boot time would be a more reasonable ~30secs.

JB

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

DavidF:

Hi Tin...
I've used Win2K but only as a biz workstation loaded down with the usual SOE stuff, which was painful but course provides no reliable metric for comparison. But when I do my regular reload of XP, with the OS unencumbered by third-party software, startup tools, tray icons and a bloated Registry, I find XP boots bloody fast, certainly well under a minute. So given that this was a clean out-of-the-box install of Vista, you'd expect it to be superfast in boot-up, and after all of Microsoft's pledges I'd expect Vista would have at least matched XP's boot time even on 'non-Vista' hardware. Fingers crossed for the gold master, eh?

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

sam:

Vista is bloatware. It won't be as much of an issue as systems get faster w/more ram though.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

User:

How Can You Even Be Reviewing The Loading Time Based On Mainstreem Systems???

Where "Main Streem" Means Faster "Windows Vista" Measns Slower...I'm Switchng To Linspire.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

DavidF:

Hi JB... actually, the Pentium M machine I used for this trial is a desktop system, not a laptop.
And while it certainly leans towards the optimistic side of the Vista spec set it's a very real-world XP system and typical of what a lot of 'average users' would be running when they come to upgrade to Vista.
My main intent was actually to compare boot-up speeds between RC1 and previous builds, so I was suprised that this hadn't come down at all.
[Interestingly, the 5472 build tooks 45 seconds to get to the desktop, which is 10 seconds under RC1, but there was a ~lot~ of background activity still hammering away at the hard disk, so this looks like more a case of Vista 5472 trying simply to show the desktop sooner. Perhaps this is a cheat's way to make users think that Vista boots faster? Nah, not from Microsoft, what was I thinking..! :P ]

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Scott:

Slow? That is a very fast boot in my opinion. Windows xp takes over 5 minutes to boot on my AMD Athlon x64 3000+ with 1Gb RAM. That is because the startup of XP slows over time. Vista's does not, i have the Beta 2 installed, and it boots faster than I have ever had XP boot! I LOVE Vista! Also, the minumum requirements for vista are 1gb RAM, any less, and it has to cycle, which doubles the boot time. You presented a biased article indeed. Not good!

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Dan Warne:

Well actually, a "Windows Vista Capable" PC according to Microsoft is one with 512MB of RAM. See: http://snipurl.com/vwa7

But then again, Microsoft does always err on the side of "ridiculously underspecced" when it comes to minimum system requirements. It's probably true to say that a fairer test would be a machine with 1GB RAM, especially consdering RAM is now so incredibly cheap (~$120/GB for generic according to StaticICE).

David does have a point though, that there's plenty of PCs out there with 512MB RAM, and people ARE going to upgrade them, given Microsoft's minimum stated 512MB requirement...

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

steve:

"low? That is a very fast boot in my opinion. Windows xp takes over 5 minutes to boot on my AMD Athlon x64 3000+ with 1Gb RAM."

Jeezus, what have you got running? Do you ever do any system maintenance?

My xp pro boots from power up to desktop in under 1 minute. (amdx64 4200 +1gb ram). Admittedly i keep my install lean and xp tweaked, but still....... 5 mins?

I'd suggest killing a few of those self starting apps to begin with.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

DavidF:

Hi Scott: Microsoft's stated minimum requirement for Vista is in fact 512MB of RAM and an 800MHz CPU. This is certainly enough to get Vista off the starting blocks but Microsoft has always played loose with their minimum spec, so much so that you sometimes wonder if they should include a pair of rose-coloured glasses in the Vista box!
If you're buying a new system today you'd almost certainly have a faster CPU and you'd probably get 1GB of RAM. We'll have to do some Vista boot tests on that machine and check the progress as Vista moves from RC1 towards RTM.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

kumite:

All this for a clean and fast desktop?
Drop Windows at all, use Linux with Xgl (Ubunto/fedora/etc...) and you will see something realy good.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Brisben:

Can anyone explain to me me why Vista is even relevant ?

Why would anyone want to make the choice between a proven failure and a potential disaster?

Why not discuss the most important part of this new OS - what will it really cost everyday home users to have a false sense of securtiy, a new machine, more RAM, faster chipsets, larger hardrives - why upgrade when the threats of virii, trojans and worms still exist?

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Parthiban:

This boot time is only for Vista. If many applications are installed (office, etc.), boot time will increase drastically, which is the case in other XP systems compared here.

Secondly, RAM SPEED is also important I guess this Vista system's RAM runs at 333Mhz GSB. System running at 800Mhz (dual channel 400Mhz) would be much faster, and the new comer core 2 duo (1066Mhz) will be even faster than all the above.

1GB in AMD Athlon 3000+ may run at 266 or 333Mhz FSB.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Smith:

yup, chuck Vista, just switch to Fedora Core 5, kickass operating system, 64-bit, the new GNOME has a great GUI, and if you really want to use MS-Office you can just use WINE.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

james lee:

geez, 5 minutes to boot xp & i'd give up being a geek!

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Mike Rogers:

No one is talking about that Vista was supposed to have a completly new file structure under the hood, But MS could not get it to work, so what we are getting is XP with a prettier interface to compete with OS X. I for one have had it with Microsoft, I plan on buying a new computer soon & I'm going with a Mac, with a proven OS... No Spyware, No Virus', Fast, etc...

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Nik:

If you're gonna get a new system (I'm with you on scrapping Windows), don't buy a Mac. I like Mac's, they're good machines, but Mac is just Linux with a pretier interface. Take your machine and load linux, FC5 works wonderfully for me. And as for MS Office on WINE (possible no doubt), you can use OpenOffice.org which is totally free and works with MS doc formats.

Vista is a waste of money, I echo that it's XP, but pretier.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Chuck:

Check out the price, too. Many coorporate users are switching to Linux. They can't afford the HW & SW cost of the upgrade. The private sector is next. Thanks Microsoft for making the choice easier.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Sam:

Is it just me or there are lots of wussies in this place posting comments. I had the feeling hat there are a couple of people that support Microsoft. I do respect companies and everything but hey , look at Linux. Nobody dies that ppl download their product. Instead Saint Bill is sueing everybody in his way to make some money. This is what pisses me off. Linux Rulez

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Mark Sanders:

"'low? That is a very fast boot in my opinion. Windows xp takes over 5 minutes to boot on my AMD Athlon x64 3000+ with 1Gb RAM.'

Jeezus, what have you got running? Do you ever do any system maintenance?

My xp pro boots from power up to desktop in under 1 minute. (amdx64 4200 +1gb ram). Admittedly i keep my install lean and xp tweaked, but still……. 5 mins?

I’d suggest killing a few of those self starting apps to begin with."


My Mac OS X is full of apps but it still loads from cold to start in 40 seconds...

You can't count power up to desktop as a boot time because everyone knows seeing the desktop in Windows XP is only an indicator that you're halfway done.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

jtw:

i used the first cpp release and hated it in fairness to m$ i loaded the pre rc-1 version i find it much faster than beta-2 a pleasure to use

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Extra:

To Mike Rogers:

Go for it man! I had been in the Wintel camp since 1990 (I still have to be for my sysadmin job) but was fortunate enough to receive a Macbook (2Ghz CoreDuo, 1Gig RAM 80Gig HD) as a gift a couple of months ago. I'm feeling really guilty because ever since I got it, I don't see my wife as much! (no, it isn't better than sex) ...What a joy to simply be able to be productive with a computer without having to deal with the constant freezes & BSOD's and hurry-up-and-patch before the worm du jour gets you BS.

The Mac has yet to screw up on it's own. (it has locked up, but only when I was connected to a Windows box over the lan- Windows is such crap it's even capable of trashing other systems). And it's already running an OS that is superior to ANYTHING that MS has out or is planning on bringing out in the next 5 years.

For my personal use I'll never spend another penny on MS software or the equipment to run it. Nor do I recommend it anymore. Getting away from Microsoft is like quitting smoking - you won't believe how much better you'll feel until you actually do it.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

J.R.:

I've been a PC guy for years. This is mainly because I've had to be due to my job, and despite the fact that I've always known Apple's products (OS and apps) are better, as is anything with a Unix base. But this Vista joke/hype/etc. is the final straw. I'm definitely switching to a Mac now for my next computer, no ifs, ands or buts about it. Good luck to the rest of you.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Martin:

"Secondly, RAM SPEED is also important I guess this Vista system’s RAM runs at 333Mhz GSB. System running at 800Mhz (dual channel 400Mhz) would be much faster, and the new comer core 2 duo (1066Mhz) will be even faster than all the above."

Err, not really. RAM speed is not that critical, and the difference between the systems you describe is far smaller than you make it sound. 333 to dual channel 400 is certainly not going to make it "much faster", certainly not by 800/333 as you seem to imply.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

JohnH:

There is a simple answer to this regarding hardware and an OS, buy a MAC.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Jonathan Swift:

I have Build 5536 running on an AMD Athlon 64 and also on a MacBookPro. The installers went smooth as silk, taking about 45 mins, Aero Glass looks good but it is nothing spectacular. On the Apple many Mac specific drivers are not there yet, also neither is the Program Compatibility Wizard icon that is linked from the Vista desktop during the install.

The TOTAL re-arrangement of the user interface, Control Panels and even the toolbar for Internet Explorer is actaully going to be a big time-waster...many experienced users of Windows XP will be LOST for several days as they fumble thru oddball menus and Icons that were never there in XP, and later find the things they need are renamed and moved to totally new locations.

Other than the gooey Look and Feel (an attempt to mimic Mac OS X, which is far better than Vistas look) they have actually gone backwards with this OS design. I predict major user disappointment, and frustration.

As for Security....the User will be making More of the choices about what is allowed to Install or Run, so the actual workload to maintain this OS will possibly double the number of clicks and dialog boxes that a person sees on a day-to-day basis...leading to another 2 steps backwards in productivity.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

think0r:

It's slow as reported. On an AMD64 X2 4000/2mb cache with 4gb of DDR2-800 the boot process is very slow and produces a black screen just prior to showing the login that makes you think vista may have just stopped booting. None the less it boots and is pretty. That said I am hugely disappointed. All the pretty glassy shiney everything makes things kind of hard to see (cluttered). Couple that with the same font problem you have in xp when running at your LCD's native resolution and you have a step backwards in useability. Change the font dpi to 120 helps but brings the same issues as in xp (and stll requires gay reboot). The system above with a pci-e nv6600le video card scores a 2.2 of 10 in "windows experience". My RAM gets a 5.5 and cpu a 4.5 making me wonder just wth kind of pc gets a score near 10.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

blardy:

Where would we all be today without Linux? Stuck with the biggest piece of garbage microshaft has produced to date. Actually I would probably still be using my free copy of Win2k, but would still eventually be forced to move on.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Dwight:

WOW listen to all the Bill Haters,What too Ignorant to Run Windows? OK i wont Hate on you Guys BUT this is an RC1 were talking about here,Not Gold. Ive been Using Windows since 3.1 Yes im Old But if you want Performance Pure plain Simple Performance, Stay with Windows as Software people who want to stay in Business makes software for WINDOWS.
Hardware Manufacturers Also make Products for Windows. Yes Bill makes Money,Who doesnt want to make money?
Cryin Wolf ? Pot Calling the Kettle Black? ive not seen one Product that can OUT Perform Windows with Products and hardware/software, Lets see why? hmmm does anyone know why? because people want to make money and stay with the mainstream. if you want Problems go with something else and have fun running a PC with at least Always 5 to 6 problems.
Good Luck Bill haters
Keep up the Good Work Bill.
Dwight Hightower

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Peter W:

What most of the Linux users seem to forget about is the usual software incompatibility issues. I work as a graphic artist and all my applications were made for windows or mac, and mostly windows. That is thousands of dollars invested in software. All of them, especially the ones that are most usefull when multi tasking, still run just fine or I would have dumped them years ago. What does Linux have to offer? Open office? Big deal. Linux is for networking and severs or expensive propriatary software, no way it can compete with mainstream GUI applications in my feild, end of story. My currenty build is WinXP and it has been running for three years now and although it has had problems and countless updates, it still brings home the bacon. It was also origionally installed on an Athlon 1800 with a PCchips mother and migrated to two new systems without reinstalling on either. Try that on a Mac or linux box. A 5 year old Mac is about as obsolite today as a 20 gb hard drive, but I still have a render server I occasionally use for over night jobs that's, running xp on a 1 ghz laptop with a Pentium 3.

You just have to be smarter then your computer.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

vu:

My ancient Athlon XP 2000+ loads Windows XP in 35 seconds. Heck I remember my old Intel 486 (like 33Mhz) boots MS-DOS in 20 seconds or so. I'm dead certain the final release will be cleaned and optimized.

I wouldn't mind Vista taking a minute to boot if it improves stability and performance, but experience has shown me that slow boot is a symptom of many different problems (and Linux has always booted slowly for me, sorry fanboys).

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

nox:

Unix based systems just make more sense,and speaking of linux it's FREE!I've only been using computers for about a year and a half and I must say I have logged more time on linux than windows.
Worms,trojans,and a general buggy OS are what led me away from windows.
I can't say I'm excited about Vista,in fact I'm anti-excited.That crap will never touch my computers if I can help it.Looks like I'll just stick with slackware,the best OS I've ever had.
Did I mention free?
Screw Mr.Bill!
I use linux on my XBOX too :)

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Mark:

AthlonXP 2800+ (2.13 GHz)
ASUS A7N8X-E Motherboard
1 GB DDR-3200 Dual-Channel RAM (Crucial, of course)
60 GB WD EIDE Boot (10gb boot part, rest as storage). (This particular motherboard doesn't seem to want to boot straight off the Serial ATA drives, so I use an older EIDE to load the Promise driver.)
200 GB Maxtor SATA has XP + apps + Vista swapfile.
120 GB Maxtor SATA has Vista + storage + XP swapfile.
Both swapfiles are hard set to 1024MB Min and Max.

WinXP SP2 cold boot - 53 sec
WinVista Beta2 cold boot - 64 sec

*Note - these are times to a fully functional desktop, not the first appearance while everything is still happening in slow motion and the start menu won't quite respond.

I have fairly old hardware, and a dual-boot menu which involves at least a few seconds of delay in the process, and I have to type in a password to get to the desktop. At startup, I have:

MS Office 2007b2 with Quickstart and Indexing
Nero 7 Ultimate
Scanner and Printer software
McAfee Antivirus software
Diskeeper 10 Pro
Windows Defender
ScanSoft Background Update
Adobe Gamma
Quicktime Pro


Both OS's run just fine. I really cannot imagine waiting 5 minutes for a PC to boot. If either OS took over a minute and a half, I'd be really annoyed, and probably kill off all the startup stuff that isn't absolutely necessary. I always thought this PC was a little slow, but after reading this forum, I'm feeling pretty good about the ol' heap of spare parts!

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Timbo:

Why is it that every Vista post has to turn into an OS slagfest where Linux and Mac fans start their tired old claims of 'My OS is better than yours'? Why is it that every shortcoming of Vista is siezed upon as the latest justification for why Linux will sweep like a Tsunami into offices and homes around the world? Yeah, sure, any day now...
I can hack 'switchers' who have made an intelligent choice, voted with their feet and wallet and moved to the Mac. This is exactly what Apple needs and Microsoft is most afraid of. But long-time one-eyed Macolytes and Penguinistas using every Vista opportunity to regurgitate their tired old diatribe? Give it a rest, guys!

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Jez:

I find it interesting that so many people that obviously hate Windows, would even read an article about Vista...

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

LeeJay:

I'm in agreement with many of my colleagues. I've been working for years on PCs,starting out teaching BASIC on PS2s. I'm frustrated with Windows XP and I can't imagine how Vista will help other than setting me back a several hundred more for more RAM and a faster processor.

I bought my kids an older Mac iBook (G3) to take to school, etc. Running OSX 10.4, it runs faster, smoother and cooler than my PC laptop. Now the PC sits unused (the kids don't like it either).

Someone once told me "if you want to spend your time fiddling with patches, upgrades, and working around freezes, by a PC. If you just want it to work, buy a Mac." Now I understand why.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Adam:

The thing is that Windows and the other operating systems are not even in the same playing field. Like everyone has said, Windows is the mainstream, and all mainstream software works on it(supposed to at least). I've been working on computers for a long time now and I have just as much beef as the rest of you over an OS that is open to viruses and spyware, but it only has those problems because again it is mainstream. There will always be kids out there trying to get their 15 mins of fame by screwing up a bunch of Windows computers, not Mac or Linux ones. I mean, what kid would waste his time to knock 10 computers out? If Apple or anyone else ever manages to become the #1 they will be facing the same issues, some of which Apple is getting a taste of already(hence the commercials they have been running to push the whole security thing and keep up their image). Needless to say, if you want something free go Linux, something easy, go Mac, something that works(usually) and works(usually) with everything, go mainstream.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Randy:

5 minute boot time, wtf. As for me, I'm sticking to XP,it cold boots in 30 seconds. Why fix something if it isn't broken? I constantly maintain my system and registry. I monitor processes running at start-up, defrag my HD and clean my registry about every couple of months or more often if need be. I have third party firewall, antivirus and spyware running. I'm saying no to Vista.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

JohnG:

Well, well, well!
Reading between the lines of all the Linuxers posting here, it appears that it's not so much the operating system that they don't like from Mr Gates, but rather that he makes money from his company's efforts.

I wonder just how many of our heros actually believe that software should be free? And books? And music? And films?

I am proud to say that I have ALWAYS paid my way when it comes to software, books, music and video, and personally, I don't care what the entrepreneurs out there do in the way of protecting their efforts from the depradations of the average pirate, just so long as they don't open the doors to the other scum of the IT world - the virus, work, trojan, etc makers and distributors.

I've also been paying my way for quite a while. Right back to CP/M and Wordstar 1.3 - and the original Flight Simulator for MS-DOS - you know, the one that didn't have a number after it's name?

The point? Well, I've also loaded Beta 2 of Vista, and while I really don't (for my own purposes) see much advantage in going to the next gen of operating systems for a while yet, it has been an interesting and valuable procedure.

I have also learned to loathe the menu structure that MS have introduced to most of the Office applications for the new generation, but I expect, just like the migrations from Wordstar to MultiMate, to Word Perfect, to Word, I'll get over this one too, in time.

In the mean time, to the BG haters out there - cheer up, one day you may just get what you wish - a world where the only available operating system is Linux, and the only available applications are open source - after all, if copy protection keeps on getting better, that's probably what most of you will be willing to afford fairly soon, anyway, especially if music and video are locked down as well!

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Matt:

To start, my computer is no slouch. I'm running vista 5536 on an
Athlon64 X2 4600+ with 1 gig Corsair DDR2 667 (DC), nvidia 7600GT XXX,
Biostar T-force 6100 Am2 momboard, Creative Audigy 4, and a 250GB WD
SATAII HDD. It ranks as a 4.5 on the Windows Experience Rating scale
due to improper drivers for the Mem controller. Every other component
ranks above a 5.2 though. Doesn't that make a user feel special?

98% of my friends and family who have seen vista in some form have all
said one thing... It looks like a MacOSX rip off. I tend to agree. I
am no apple fanboy but OSX seems to have almost all of the visual
effects vista touts but running on lesser hardware. Granted that Apple
hardware costs more, the point persists. Also, all you linux and apple fanboys out there seem to forget the versitility of a windows machine... My windows XP box is a tivo, game console, media editing machine, coding machine, DVD encoder, video chat machine, etc... Macs can't do all the things PCs can. So keep that in mind. Linux/Unix Boxes require just too much upkeep to be viable most of the time. I don't want to code my own drivers everytime I upgrade my hardware. That said, back to the show...

I just saw an announcement yesterday that Vista RC1 is "complete". I
just snagged build 5536 not 5 days ago and it's supposed to be a
Pre-RC1 build. The improvements since May's Beta 2 release are quite
promising but this build is hardly even close to an RC1 build. It's
still very unstable. The Security is still very annoying. Tons of
other features are lackluster or shoddy at best. I've crashed it 5
times in a 2.5 hour period... 2 of those required a reinstall. Media
center is finally usable, but also unstable especially with large
amounts of video files and files on networked drives. The windows
Sidebar is a total waste, the gadgets are cute but useless. When I
roll my mouse over it, sidebar.exe's CPU usage Spikes to 50% or
more... in one word, terrible. I don't want to sacrifice 50% of my CPU
to play a mini version of PONG while looking at the weather and
reading RSS news feeds. Gaming performance is still worse than XP,
that is if you can get a game to run. I've tried about 5 games (3 DX9
and 2 OpenGL) and the openGL games (Prey and Quake4) won't even start
gameplay without an error. That may be attributed to the Creative and
nvidia beta drivers, but it's too early to tell. I have to say that I
am somewhat impressed with MS's work on the IPv6 stack, but that's
been there since the early beta builds. 4 months of work and all MS
has to show for it is a mild increase in stability, minor improvements
in usability, a glowing blue doughnut instead of an hourglass, and a
Media center that doesn't stutter or crash on load... I just don't see
how vista will be ready by Feb 2007.

I'm harsh but that's because I feel that Vista should've been much
more... Microsoft had 5 years of dev, decades of experience, and the
best talent money can buy. I know they had to scrap 2 years of work
and start over, but still. I am not "wow-ed". I have no idea why there
are so many positive reviews of this build! I feel like everyone is
lauding a 9 year old from a wealthy family with a 160 IQ who just
spent 2 hours figuring out the correct answer to 2+2.

Vista ultimate's price tag of $399 is hardly worth it and a borderline
slap in the face. I think this may be Windows 2000 all over again.

On another note, both my girlfriend and her sister think the Windows
Energy screen saver looks cool. Good job on that one, MS!

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Nick:

Welcome to amature hour.

1) You cannot already review stuff on an OS that has not been officially released yet because they are still working on it no matter how long it is taking them.
2) I'm sure most of you haven't even seen the OS run on the new release.
3) There is a reason Microsoft is as large as it is today and people will still buy Vista way more then any other OS. (Even though they have the neverending wallet)
4) Yes Macs are nice to have, but you are paying about double the price to the PC equivalent for the OS to baby you around and have no sense of exploration or learning something new. I learn something new about XP everyday. (Good or bad)
5) The reason Microsoft is putting all their own anti-virus, firewall, etc. is so you don't have to load all the extra third-party crap on your computer.
6) Linux = Waste of money for business becuase then they have to hire people to manage Linux and teach all of their employees how to use Linux when they have been using Microsoft for 10+ years.

There is the good, and the bad for every OS, some are meant for certain users.

AND

Bill Gates rocks because how many of you can say you built up an empire as large as his and changed the world as we know it through computing? Nobody.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Jason:

I've ran both Beta 2 and RC1, both without any problems, excluding minor visual bugs which I couldn't care any less about.

But I totally agree with the Linux/Mac users. If you can't even figure out how to use Windows without it crashing non-stop, then make the switch to those OS's, n00bs. And have fun running the entire 5 applications that those come with.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Nik:

Why are the Linux users so annoying?

And VIRUS is not Latin, so it's spelled Viruses.

I never used Linux before, but seeing how the Linux users here and elsewhere talk, I don't wanna use it. They are like those people come in pair with a book in their hand asking if I believe some guy named God, but more laughable.

Don't wanna waste your time, so here are my 2 cents:
RC1's SPEED, time it takes for certain programs to load, is indistinguishable from XP.

DRIVER SUPPORT is seamless on my Dell Inspiron 5150 3.2Mhz HT, 60 7200RPM, 1.5GB RAM, and nVidia 5200 Go.

HOW STABLE? Since Pre-RC1, nothing crashed yet while I did Skype, watched DVD and Xvid, Browsed the net with Firefox Beta 2 or IE 7, Listened to Bach, and etc. Nothing heavy yet.

WHAT DO I LIKE THE MOST: The search, if you have used App Rocket, you know how this feels. The graphic is great and I am confident they will refine it even more when it comes out officially. Some other little things that people tend not to notice. For example, Windows Key + number launches programs on your Quick Launch bar. CTRL + scroll gives you different views of a folder (detail, tiles and etc). Security has seen improvements indeed. Though I still have doubts how this new security strategy fend off the future, newer, cleverer malware attacks due to XP's history, I have confidence in Vista. I will not switch to any other OS because of security as human is the weakest link here. Think so?
Internet Explorer 7 is very fast:displaying pages. They need work on opening of a new tab, just a bit of sluggish comparing to Firefox. The version history feature is very helpful.


WHAT I DON'T LIKE SO MUCH OR HOPE BETTERMENT FOR: The gadget's can do a bit better, right? I hope the Flip3D can be a lot more smooth (it's much better now that in Beta 2). As I tend to use more keyboard to control my computer, I find Expose, while a nice idea-also an MS concept in 2001-on Max OS X not as useful for me, listen, for me. And luckily I remember all the alt + underlined letter in XP, otherwise I am almost lost in keyboard navigation in Vista as the underlined letters in XP are less often underlined now (not even after I press Alt).

WHAT DISAPPOINT ME? Windows Mail, nothing new to it; Calendar doesn't offer something like a central located server where you can look at it when you are not on your own computer.

I can't think of anything else to say, maybe if I do remember something else, I will come back.

Final words, you are safe to use RC1 as a productivity OS. I think it will be fine.

Best,

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin:

"6) Linux = Waste of money for business becuase then they have to hire people to manage Linux and teach all of their employees how to use Linux when they have been using Microsoft for 10+ years."

Not true... Only applies with people that would need training for new releases of WIndows anyway.
Like a change to Vista is going to go smoothly. Come on, it doesn't even look remotely the same, and certainly doesn't behave the same (unless you could that it might prove unstable).

Oh, and MS including security features like anti-virus... Not going to work. Why do people target holes in Windows? Because it's a big target. Millions of boxes, and plenty of bugs. If the anti-virus is all the same, find a big in it, and oh look, you can turn it off.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Timbo:

Oh, Nick, where to begin?

"Welcome to amature hour"

It's amateur (welcome to dictionary.com and basic level spelling).

"1) You cannot already review stuff on an OS that has not been officially released yet because they are still working on it no matter how long it is taking them."

Right now Vista is 'feature complete' and keeping track of what's in it and what is NOT in it is a prety good way to know if it'll be worth waiting for.

"2) I’m sure most of you haven’t even seen the OS run on the new release."
I have. It's been on BitTorrent for days.

"3) There is a reason Microsoft is as large as it is today and people will still buy Vista way more then any other OS."
Actually people won't buy Vista as much as they'll buy a PC which has Vista pre-installed. I reckon boxed Vista sales will be maybe 5-10% of the number of new Vista systems sold over the next several years.

"4) Yes Macs are nice to have, but you are paying about double the price to the PC equivalent"
Man, have you checked Apple prices lately? The MacBooks especially are lower priced and better value than ever bfore. I'm a Windows guy myself but I have to admit that Apple long ago stopped being 'twice the price' of Windows systems. They're much closer in price and far more competitive in specs.

"and have no sense of exploration or learning something new. I learn something new about XP everyday."
That's fine if you want to spend your days learning about the OS. Most people just want to use their computer to actually do something, something real-world and practical.

"5) The reason Microsoft is putting all their own anti-virus, firewall, etc. is so you don’t have to load all the extra third-party crap on your computer."
Well, Vista doesn't have AV - that's extra, and part of their OneCare package - but it's more so that you don't buy someone else's AV, firewall etc.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Don:

I love you guys!!!!!!!

Group hug everyone!!!!
come on come on dont be shy :D

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

David Flynn:

Vista just popped up a User Account Control box asking if I wanted to accept Don's group hug.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

J:

Anyone who says XP needed 5 or more minutes to startup is obviously not very accustomed to performing maintenance on their system. I've had windows XP installed for 2 and a half years (with antivirus, anti-spyware, and every app I could ever want) and my boot up time is around 30 seconds (that includes login). Vista, by comparison, takes a minimum of about 2 minutes if you count the login procedure, and that's on a clean install. I have an Athlon 64 4000 and 1gb of ram. I realize that more RAM will help, but thus far Vista doesn't have any compelling feature that warrant the upgrade. I think this review was well constructed and that the systems chosen were quite reasonable. Any of you who think Vista boots fast only because your XP system takes several minutes to load are also making an "unfair" comparison, as it speaks more to your own inability to maintain a system than it does to the speed of Vista.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin:

Yes J. All of us who have long boot times in XP are bad and maintaining our Windows installs.
Yes, Vista's BETA takes a while to load. Who cares.... Put XP on a box that was half decent during the XP BETA time, and I'll bet it starts slow there too.

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

dave:

i got vista runnin on my powerbook and it blows osx away far superior.
at last ms has produced a stable fast os

29 February 2008, 8:28 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

View all comments (65)  

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags