500 Hour Test of Tomorrow's Windows "Vista"

[Agent_SMITH]

I am ASTOUNDED as to what level of ignorance demonstrated in such a respectable authority such as THG...

Before ever commenting on issues far beyond one's comrehension it would be nice to know that

The new look of the operating system is good, and lets it outshine its Linux and Mac OS competitors.

in view of the already existing AND fully operational XGL and LG3D desktop enhancements, "outshine" is a word so exagerated I can only gasp in disbelief it was published here.

Perhaps, had I seen this in my script-kiddie-neighbour's blog I would have smiled and let go... to see it published here makes me wonder whether I could possibly trust THG with reviews on hardware I have so often sought before any forthcoming purchase...

Two words - XGL and LG3D. This next to my dismay of the incompetence demonstrated.

 

[mpjesse]

Well what concerns me is no one has made any mention of AA. If we're not hearing anything... i don't think there is any AA. And that concerns me.

 

[mpjesse]

Is this the Agent_Smith of the former #betas and current #neterz?

 

[306maxi]

Well what concerns me is no one has made any mention of AA. If we're not hearing anything... i don't think there is any AA. And that concerns me.

Paul Thurrott's website has a bit on AA in Vista

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_4015.asp

 

[linux_0]

Interesting...

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9000829

 

[306maxi]

Yes. But Mac is written for fools who just have no idea as well as professionals who want to do video and graphical editing. XP and Vista cater to all. If you want to do video editing and graphical design you still can. If you want to game, you can. If you want to do all the things a PC can do. you can. Usability is a subjective thing. While some people might find a "I'm an idiot who has no idea about PC's and I need help" button a good idea. The majority of us are able to use the XP interface which by now is second nature and we get by with it even if it's not as pretty as OS X or Vista

 

[linux_0]

Yes. But Mac is written for fools who just have no idea as well as professionals who want to do video and graphical editing. XP and Vista cater to all. If you want to do video editing and graphical design you still can. If you want to game, you can. If you want to do all the things a PC can do. you can. Usability is a subjective thing. While some people might find a "I'm an idiot who has no idea about PC's and I need help" button a good idea. The majority of us are able to use the XP interface which by now is second nature and we get by with it even if it's not as pretty as OS X or Vista

I said it was interesting, I didn't say I agreed with the author on everything.

It is food for thought however.

 

[306maxi]

Yes. But Mac is written for fools who just have no idea as well as professionals who want to do video and graphical editing. XP and Vista cater to all. If you want to do video editing and graphical design you still can. If you want to game, you can. If you want to do all the things a PC can do. you can. Usability is a subjective thing. While some people might find a "I'm an idiot who has no idea about PC's and I need help" button a good idea. The majority of us are able to use the XP interface which by now is second nature and we get by with it even if it's not as pretty as OS X or Vista

I said it was interesting, I didn't say I agreed with the author on everything.

It is food for thought however.

I didn't say I even disagreed with the author 😉 I just think that sometimes what's simple and easy to use for the lowest commoon denominator can be a pain for the users who are a bit more proficient in the use of their computer.

 

[linux_0]

Yes. But Mac is written for fools who just have no idea as well as professionals who want to do video and graphical editing. XP and Vista cater to all. If you want to do video editing and graphical design you still can. If you want to game, you can. If you want to do all the things a PC can do. you can. Usability is a subjective thing. While some people might find a "I'm an idiot who has no idea about PC's and I need help" button a good idea. The majority of us are able to use the XP interface which by now is second nature and we get by with it even if it's not as pretty as OS X or Vista

I said it was interesting, I didn't say I agreed with the author on everything.

It is food for thought however.

I didn't say I even disagreed with the author 😉 I just think that sometimes what's simple and easy to use for the lowest commoon denominator can be a pain for the users who are a bit more proficient in the use of their com
mputer.




More food for thought:

http://www.linuxforums.org/reviews/fedora_core_5_review_2.html

:-D

 

[ap]

I didn't say I even disagreed with the author 😉 I just think that sometimes what's simple and easy to use for the lowest commoon denominator can be a pain for the users who are a bit more proficient in the use of their computer.

except you are proficient at using windows. there's no reason to believe a proficient osx user would be any less proficient than a proficient windows user. simply stating your comparison in a sentence makes it sound ridiculous. if i am proficient at english, and someone else is proficient at french, trying to determine how much more proficient i am than that other person makes little sense.

in fact, since osx is built on *nix, you can always just open the *nix terminal and be a true power user. osx caters to the lowest denominator all the way up to the most hardcore power user (the kind that tweaks the kernel for kicks during lunch). if anything, if you want about talk about catering to all types, osx caters to a much wider range of individuals.

the myth about gaming on a mac is quickly evaporating, as i can just boot xp or vista and game.

on a mac, xp/vista gets relegated to gaming and cad design. osx fills in every other gap.

so, no, osx does not cater to "fools" and "video and graphic editing professionals." it's clear you either simply appreciate the windows style (which is fine, your choice), or have never used osx. if it's the former, then dont hide your preference as a false generalization of other OS's. if it's the latter, then perhaps you should spend a month using osx before attempting to analyze it.

 

[FITCamaro]

People are too worried about the system requirements for Vista, especially when it runs fine on a 1ghz machines and even 128mb of RAM, truly.

It might boot up but no one would want to use it. When its slow on 3.0GHz machines with 512MB of RAM what makes you think its useable on 1GHz machines with 128MB of RAM. Not even XP runs on 128MB of RAM well.

I've thought about maybe Vista is slow and uses a lot of resources because a lot of the code is running in debug mode. But if thats the case I'd think Microsoft would say that. Especially with all the articles coming out talking about how resource heavy it is. I do hope thats the case though. If they can make it run using only 300MB or so of RAM and a normal size page file, then I'll upgrade when it comes out. If its still using the same amount of RAM as it is now when it comes out, I'm going to wait a bit until we actually need DX10.

 

[stoppard]

I'm hearing way too much about what Vista looks like. I don't care if it has 3-d windows or translucent borders. I run xp pro and the first thing I do is shut off all the cutesy fisher price looking crap after an install. I don't buy a car or house based solely on aestethics and I won't buy an OS based on that either.

If it's proven down the road that Vista is a better/more efficient OS, I'll switch. If it's all about eye candy; well M$ better not hold their breath waiting for me to buy it.

 

[shuffle2]

regardless, I encourage everyone to try suse 10.1 (and make sure to install XGL)

you won't be dissapointed by the visual effects....they are stunning in gnome or kde (maybe even other WMs...); to like linux or not, however, is up to you.

(i love it :roll: )

 

[Markoni]

I'm pretty sure I won't be switching to Vista as long as I can play games and use aplications I usually use on XP. I change win only when I'm forced to. It sickens me, and the only thing that comforts me is that I've NEVER HAVE & NEVER WILL pay a dime to Microsoft. I use everything for free. And the most nervewrecking thing about windows is one of windows 95: that f*****g screen "Getting ready to run windows for the first time". I've reinstalled it at least trillion times and that mf pissed me off everytime... So Bill, no money from me.

About the article, well, it was waste of (my) time. I expected to see, as well as others, some hardware req's and like, reading about eyecandy is not my interest. And they spent 500 hours to explore that!?!?!

my 2 cents...

 

[ObsidianGTR]

InkBall was not introduced with Windows Vista, instead, it was introduced in Windows XP Tablet PC Edition. The idea, I assume, was to use the Pen on the Digitizer to "draw" lines on the screen that control the ball's directional bounce.

 

[shihan]

My personal opionion so far of the beta has been sheer disappointment. There's absolutely positively no inovation left is microsoft and vista is living proof. Not one invovative thing done. IE now looks like firefox (and thats a good thing) but probably still has IE security holes. the new "look" well, yay, eye candy.

They wrapped a gui around the ms implementation of ipv6 and left the bugs in the dam thing (the implementation, not the gui)... WTF??

There was only really 2 things i wanted from vista and it failed me (so far, from the last time i installed it somewhere). the first was a real software management tool. Compare "install shield's, yeah do what you want so long as you add a registry key" to even solaris 10-year old (maybe more?) pkg* set and solaris is a million times more usefull, in the very least solaris will tell you if a file "changed" since install for any installed package. Yet MS keep it the idiot way and leave accountability up to the software package.

Then theres the removable hardware wizard, for years if you couldnt remove a device because it was in use, unix and macos have been able to tell you which program is holding it open. But not windows...

Those were the only 2 things i wanted. The gui is "heavy" to say the least, the 3d implementation is a complete rip off of a linux one that was done years ago (and somehow manages to be much slower). Hell, you could wrap up everything ms have done for vista into something windows like to call a "theme" and no one would be able to tell the difference.

Being able to accurately determine how long a folder structure is about the most usefull thing vista has, and yet still manages to be only a couple of years behind with that.

No wonder vista is delayed, they're looking for something to put in it that makes it look like they actually changed something. I think i'd keel over dead if microsoft managed to be innovative rather than just pouch things from everything else.

 

[justjc]

I remember that I in the early days, when Vista still was known as Longhorn, there was a mention of an improved speech recognition software, that would allow you to spak most commands. Does anyone know if this is one of the things that they dropped :?:

About the Aero interface I'm sure someone will make alternatives, for those not liking it, looking at least as good, but with better choice of colours. All needed is someone making a big enough demand

 

[pmeinl]

Here is another interesting Vista review:
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_beta2.asp

 

[KeithCash]

Article URL: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/01/windows_vista/index.html

FYI

This link gives error.

 

[KeithCash]

Article URL: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/01/windows_vista/index.html

FYI

This link gives error.

 

[KeithCash]

Good Article


This of Note:
The minimum system requirements for Windows Vista Beta 2 are an 800 MHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) microprocessor, 512 MB of RAM, a 20 GB hard drive with 15 GB of free space, and a CD-ROM drive. For Vista Home Basic, Microsoft recommends a 3D video card and a DVD-compatible optical drive, along with audio and Internet capabilities. For Vista Home Premium, Ultimate, Business, and Enterprise editions, the company ups the ante with 1 GHz microprocessor, 1 GB of RAM, an "Aero capable" video card, and a 40 GB hard drive.

Getting a hungry on hardware requirments are we.

 

[306maxi]

People are too worried about the system requirements for Vista, especially when it runs fine on a 1ghz machines and even 128mb of RAM, truly.

It might boot up but no one would want to use it. When its slow on 3.0GHz machines with 512MB of RAM what makes you think its useable on 1GHz machines with 128MB of RAM. Not even XP runs on 128MB of RAM well..

Considering that I've used Vista with little or no problems on a system that only had a 2.8Ghz processor and 512mb of RAM I think you're fairly off the ball there Yes it does run better on a machine with a gig of memory but 512 will be fine for most people for the time being.

 

[mcbust]

For starters, this article was a great read to get a high-level understanding of what Windows VISTA is all about. #1 favourite feature --> tabbed browsing in IE7! Woohoo! No more need to run 2 browsers (IE/Firefox).

It would have been nice to get some more detailed information about the guts of the new OS (kernel improvements, networking improvements, i/o optimizations, etc), but I think that thenetavenger did a great job in his reply:

1) Major Kernel changes (Memory Management, Caching technologies)
2) Display Driver Changes (WDDM, GPU RAM Virtualization - Video Moved to non crashing User Ring, etc) (OpenGL and DirectX improvement using these technologies besides just mentioning DirectX)
3) Changes in HD and Network performance and access methods
4) Scheduling and process changes in both the kernel and Win32/Win65 subsystems.
5) API and Architecture changes, GDI+, WPF replacing GDI, Underlying features that create a whole new platform for developers, including 3D programming using a simple XML file?
6) The new *nix subsystem running a BSD variant that co-exists with the Win32/64 subsystem.
7) Or about 50 other things that have changed 'under the hood' even though the UI is not a VAST change. (i.e. Managed code, new compiler techniques used on the OS code, etc etc. )

Here are a few personal thoughts. I would consider myself a power user, suckled on DOS 6.22, weened on Win3.11, fell in love with 98SE and have grown to love XP. Since the release of OSX, the *nix kernel, and once again that beautiful GUI, there is no doubt that OSX actually became a viable alternative to XP, for myself let me add. I would never get rid of my Windows box, but I seriously considered getting a MAC for the "cool" factor.
I've been hmming and hawwing about getting a nice little MAC mini or Core Duo just for light duties like internet browsing, iPod/iTunes, pictures, movies and that BEAUTIFUL GUI!!!

BUT, after reading this article about VISTA, I'm beginning to reconsider. The GUI has definately been given a nice facelift and the under-the-hood improvements are sure to make the Windows experience a lot less pain-free except for the arm and a leg it's gonna cost to buy it. Now that I've seen some of the eye-candy, I can't wait for its release next year!

One last comment, to all the MS and Windows haters out there, the whole computer industry wouldn't be anywhere without Microsoft. Personally, I don't have 5000 hours to monkey around with various *nix distros, looking for that beta driver that doesn't work, reading through hundreds of posts and FAQs. I'm not knocking *nix, but get real. Windows is the mothership and although she may have many faults, she still deserves some R-E-S-P-E-C-T =)

mcbust

 

[Luscious]

People are too worried about the system requirements for Vista, especially when it runs fine on a 1ghz machines and even 128mb of RAM, truly.

It might boot up but no one would want to use it. When its slow on 3.0GHz machines with 512MB of RAM what makes you think its useable on 1GHz machines with 128MB of RAM. Not even XP runs on 128MB of RAM well..

Considering that I've used Vista with little or no problems on a system that only had a 2.8Ghz processor and 512mb of RAM I think you're fairly off the ball there Yes it does run better on a machine with a gig of memory but 512 will be fine for most people for the time being.

My actual concern was with the video RAM, since I have only 64MB on my laptop and vista upgrade advisor is screaming at me to upgrade. I've got plenty of regular RAM (2GB) but I'm wondering if vista can use regular RAM for video RAM and run happy.

 

[Forbin]

Just curious but why are people so annoyed about M$ doing what they always do? ie. attempt to make an easy to use system.

even if you include a number of the 'new' features like the kernal, and built in protections, all they are doing is the same they have been trying to do the last couple of windows versions.

Granted, THG did only look at some of the 'fluff'.

what good would of happened if they made all the usual relatively good comparisons on a build that not only is in debug mode, but is probably at least 3 revamps away from being considered the shipped product. I'd rather see them do all of these say, within the first week to week and a half before the official release date, if, by chance M$ thinks it could get a good review of its actual product that is, and gave them an early copy. I've noticed that THG usually does comparisons to existing products that are available to public use with only minor updates to products when in the testing stages. I don't really see why this should change.