Windows Vista Ultimate Hands On: A Diary

[dade49]

I hope everyone who reads darklife41's comments takes it with a grain of salt. It's 1 opinion.

darklife41, you mentioned that you're running Vista RC1. Please be aware that there are a number of changes in the final revision. That's why it's called a Release Canidate. Sure, if you like Classic mode, use it. That's why it's there. As for turning off features, Microsoft wants your system to work the way you want it to. That's why you can change and customize so much of the interface. It's also good to note that there is not 1 spyware or anti-virus software package out there that can detect every threat. By requiring user's input, it stops all scripts/worms/trojans from running without your consent. By turning this off, you're opening up yourself to possible threats.

Setting up Vista to run with Windows 2003 Small Business Server is a total pain compared to XP? I found that adding Vista to a domain was quite easy.

Vista seems to handle file transfers a bit better, but ultimately, it's your hardware/bandwidth that is the bottleneck.

Honestly I love XP's native mode, and Vista has basically fixed all the gripes I had XP's interface, and added much more.

Vista is an incredible OS, with lots of potential. Yes, it requires newer hardware. If you have a Pentium3, or lower, you shouldn't run Vista. If you have an embedded Video card with shared memory, you should not use the Aero interface (Vista Basic). You should definately have 2GB of Ram. This is what is reccommended by Microsoft. Also, USB flash drives are very common and cheap nowadays. Invest in a 2GB or 4GB one and use it as cache RAM in Vista. That will help you out a lot if you don't have enough physical RAM.

Any Dual-Core proc will work great in Vista. Yes, an overclocked 4.1Ghz P4 will run Vista great, as well as any 3Ghz Proc or close.

XP is a great OS, and will continue to stay around for a long time. With that being said, be aware that Vista is the new OS, and old OS's die over time. Eventually XP will not be supported anymore, just like every previous OS. The good thing about this is that Microsoft will wait until most Desktop users have migrated to Vista, which is between 1 - 2 years.

One last thing:
Yes, driver support is a problem. It's a problem because Vista's kernel and internal resources are very different then XP. Most hardware drivers are already in Vista, but if it isn't, blame the company that made it. This will be fixed over time, just like the migration from 2000 to XP did.

 

[darklife41]

Vanka,
If you think Vista is going to stop you from installing spyware you're sadly mistaken. The popup windows have never warned me about installing spyware, they warn every time you try to install anything... ANYTHING. If you don't know if a program contains spyware, Vista's security window isn't going to help at all. I believe the idea behind it is that no one can run arbitrary code such as from an email on your computer. It may work for this, but I wouldn't know for sure since I haven't gotten an email like that in years.

As for uninstalling anything, XP and 2K both ask if you really want to delete before you do. And even then, as long as they'll fit they're sent to the recycle bin, where they can be easily restored from later. Again, Vista won't prevent this from happening in any way.

Since the 'double ask if you're sure' from XP and 2k didn't stop people from doing silly things, I sure don't understand how Vista's process (which is basically the same thing except that its slower and looks more threatening) is going to prevent the same things from happening. The truth is that after a person closes a window such as this enough times, they'll do so without even thinking about it soon enough, over and over again.

 

[darklife41]

I hope everyone who reads darklife41's comments takes it with a grain of salt. It's 1 opinion...

And that's the entire idea of this thread. It's not a review, its an opinion based upon a free trial. Every reply on here is an opinion. Whether you love Vista or hate it. So take it all with a grain of salt, including your own comments. 🙂

 

[croc]

Most of the testers I know all change some of the basic configs. Control panel, classic. Why? Easier navigation.

UAC settings. Why? Its annoying.

Folder settings. Why? Full file details.

I like the tools menu on the IE interface. Call me an old dog... But I find it easier.

My 2p....

 

[michaelahess]

Since I got the enterprise release way back in November, I've been putting vista through it's paces, on my personal domain and my test domain at one of my jobs. I must say I see NO reason to upgrade anything right now. I can't use Vista on any of my three wireless networks that use WPA-Enterprise (tkip/radius and cert problems, if anyone has this working let me know!) And the user interface is a complete waste of space, it's bad enough that the sidebar even exists, but all the wasted space within the various windows????? I know you can get rid of it, but like every version of windows since 3.0, the settings just don't always stay the same. (Can't wait for OS X's new resolution independent rendering!)

I love office 2k7, Outlook is slower with my exchange servers however, and terribly slow with hotmail, but it's ease of use outways the slight exchange slow downs.

And I gotta say, the review stunk, of course you have to enter your password everytime when not on a domain, why would that even remotely suprise you? And I agree that setting it to classic is a bad move. I hated XP's interface when I started beta testing it, but I hung in there and now I find it much more convienient.

Also, all the reviews I've seen on Vista don't try any advanced networking! Numerous universities are already posting that they won't support Vista on their wireless networks thanks to the tkip/radius issues and I have yet to see Microsoft offer any advice on technet or otherwise. I've had issues with vlan support with even Intel NICS on Cisco 3560's. Also, from my iperf tests, Vista's new stack is slower than XP, anywhere from 5%-40% depending on load types! Wireless is particularly bad with Zyxel equipment, Cisco isn't much better. For once my crappy Linksys can keep pace with my 1130's! Maybe it just doesn't like networking with xp and 2k3? I only have one Vista box on either network so I'll leave that testing up to anyone with more time.

End of rant, and seriuosly, if anyone has gotten wpa-ent working, please let me know!

 

[russki]

Vanka,
If you think Vista is going to stop you from installing spyware you're sadly mistaken. The popup windows have never warned me about installing spyware, they warn every time you try to install anything... ANYTHING. If you don't know if a program contains spyware, Vista's security window isn't going to help at all. I believe the idea behind it is that no one can run arbitrary code such as from an email on your computer. It may work for this, but I wouldn't know for sure since I haven't gotten an email like that in years.

Not a good comment. The thought behin the prompts is that a lot of times spyware / malware would run code / install components wihtout the user knowigng (such as whe accessing certain websites, etc.). The prompts will absolutely stop that. if you are trying to install a legitimate piece of software - well, then you know it's ok. But if you are not - the prompt will make you think twice. Pay attention to the reviews that say "yes it's a pain during the system set-up, but it's worth it after everything is set-up." After all, it is a trade off between security and annoyance. But be full with your disclosure and educated with your opinions. Just saying "I get prompted when I install ANYTHING" (thanks for yelling) doesn't cut it.

 

[jedifenner]

Hey Slobogob, I have to take back my initial comments about your article. It was my assumption (and probably most readers as well) that since TomsHardware put this on their site that it must be a review (sorry, blog) that details a tech savvy guys experience with Vista. Also, I had assumed that you had submitted this review (damn, I mean blog) to TomsHardware and would then of course be subjected to the tech savvy enthusiasts who frequent this site. Plus I had assumed that since Microsoft had sent you a system "To get my input on Windows Vista" that they would want you to use the default options to get proper feedback.

Had I known the above and that you were not going to write anything of value (at least, for the tech savvy crowd) I would never had read nor responded to your review (ARGH!, BLOG!).

To address your comments:
1. "First, a lot of people that will use Windows Vista will use the classic interface"
This not accurate. First, most end users have no clue how to nor care to customize Windows at all, let alone its default and classic interface. They might change the wallpaper, but that is normally about all. Only a small percentage of individuals tend to drop the interface back to previous builds interface because they cannot deal with learning something new. such as moving Vista-->XP, before that XP-->2000 I did see a study on it when XP came out, but of course I don't have it available, so I guess you will have to trust me on this one.
2. "Second, the Interface is just that. An Interface."
Vista is all about the interface. Heck, even the word Vista means "view: the visual percept of a region". Microsoft's intention was to make the interface so important that they added features that you only get when using the default interface. Interface EQUALS experience, at least from the beginning. Reverting back would be doing a disservice to Microsoft if you were doing a review of their product. But since you are not doing a review of their product, then by all means use the classic mode.
If this review (oops, blog) is not about the GUI, then why not just work in a command prompt window? You can definitely show Vista's abilities without having to discuss why you had to revert to Classic Interface mode.
3. "If all you care about is the new interface, i suggest..."
Touchy, touchy! Don't blog in public if you can't take constructive crit. When I broach a subject, especially one about a new piece of technology, I start at the beginning, which most times is the INTERFACE. Why? Because I suspect that the MAJORITY of users who read my blog will not be reverting its interface back to classic mode, thus I would want to post something worthwhile. I give my personal opinions on the interface and then move on to the next subject, such as functionality, security, etc...

In the future, perhaps you should preface your blogs (see, I finally got it right!) with a tidbit that states that "anyone wishing to know detailed technical information", or "anyone looking for out-of-the-box feature reviews" should go elsewhere as you are just going to perform a series of "this is how I use it" regardless if it is of any value to the mass majority.

I will say that I did have an excellent time in reading your irritated replies, but unfortunately I won't be able to return to this forum as there are some truly interesting reviews (yes reviews, not blogs) on TomsHardware that I really want to check out.

Have fun blogging to technical morons, as they will be the only ones reading this worthless pile of blog $h1t... 😛

 

[jedifenner]

I agree, opinions are everywhere and are never right, nor wrong. They are only viewpoints, even if those viewpoints follow with those of the majority of people.

My opinion is:
People who change the interface to classic are those who do not like change or are unwilling/unable to learn.

Vista's interface, if used properly, can improve the overall experience. But that is just my opinion! HA!

:twisted:

 

[dade49]

jedifenner is right on the money.

Anyone who still uses the Classic interface is unwilling to learn the new one. I expected many of my clients to continue to use classic when we moved from 2000 to XP, but by now, most of them use the standard interface in XP and love it. Vista is basically the same concept, but with better graphics. If you still use the classic interface, you should wake up, and join the rest of us in the 21st century.

 

[x32579]

If I understand correctly, what you said is that Vista is no more difficult than XP. Somehow I don't see this as a reason to spend big bucks on a new operating system. Especially as I expect MS will expect full price for a copy for my desktop and full price for another copy for my laptop. However, if someone wants to give me a multi $1,000 computer with Vista fuly installed I will be glad to try it.

Bill I

 

[ninjaquick]

good idea, ill use a game for 95, say "a bridge too near", or whatever the title is. Ill up some screens.. how do i do that?

 

[darklife41]

I agree, opinions are everywhere and are never right, nor wrong. They are only viewpoints, even if those viewpoints follow with those of the majority of people.

My opinion is:
People who change the interface to classic are those who do not like change or are unwilling/unable to learn.

Vista's interface, if used properly, can improve the overall experience. But that is just my opinion! HA!

:twisted:

And you're entitled to your opinion.

My opinion is that anyone who thinks they're getting a better experience by using the new interface has no clue what an interface is. And anyone who thinks they're living in the times because they have no problems with being forced to learn a new way to do the same old tricks is clueless. Whatever trips your trigger.

I don't believe I had a problem learning the new interface, as I spent about 3 months on it and run a computer business. The fact is I prefer the classic interface. For me its like call waiting. No one likes to be put on hold, but everyone likes to put someone on hold to take a new call. However when you got the old busy signal, you could do other things while you waited for the phone line to be open. It was more efficient and more polite IMO. Newer isn't always better. ;-)

Its important to keep in mind that this diary is about Vista Ultimate. Ultimate isn't designed to be targeted towards everyone. Its the most expensive version with all the bells and whistles that most people will never use. The true test will be when reviews and diary's appear about the basic version, which will have much less crap running in the backround. If you don't log on to a domain and need the media center options it would be silly to buy Ultimate.

Several knowledgable people have reported here and elsewhere that Vista is slower than XP. It'll be interesting to see how enthusiasts balance the performance sacrifice with the visual advantages to make their buying decisions. 🙂

 

[Pepicek]

jedifenner is right on the money.

Anyone who still uses the Classic interface is unwilling to learn the new one. I expected many of my clients to continue to use classic when we moved from 2000 to XP, but by now, most of them use the standard interface in XP and love it. Vista is basically the same concept, but with better graphics. If you still use the classic interface, you should wake up, and join the rest of us in the 21st century.

sh1t dont wake me. :? i like slumbering in XP in classic mode. I can operate at my computer cross-eyed drunk and know where my programs are, I can click near an icon, and can search and do file transfers as I have for years.

I aint goin out there to get vista because its new and want to spend x hours "learning" it. OS is just a necessary evil to get where I want to be... running the programs. I like the classic look and feel, I grew up with it. It all started with a GUI introduced on the Commodore 64 (looked a LOT like MAC gui!). Then my Tatung 386 with Win 3.1. then on to 95, 98, and now XP. edit: I intentionally omitted NT, ME, and 2000. didn't use them, didnt need to. Mebbe vista will be another "vanity" OS while XP continues to be supported. end edit. The classic look has been with me while MS updated the underlying operations.

If your first experience with windows is the XP default view and you learn it, I'm sure that'll continue to be your fave.

if vista features drop when changing to classic format, well I guess us old dogs get wat we deserve. Change or die.

Meanwhile, let me snooze.

 

[JohnM21789]

GUI has nothing to do with how an operating system works. I have Vista Beta 2, and Vista RC1 and Vista RTM, all Ultimate, and there really isn't anything special about them yet. Sure, they look good, but vista is completely pointless as of now, because there are no DirectX 10 games yet. Vista is a gaming operating system, and an operating system for people to start using computers on.

Vista is designed for gamers to run incredible, beautiful DirectX 10 games on. Vista is also designed for computer newbs to learn how to use a computer.

If you've been using a computer for longer then a year, and don't plan on playing newer games, sticking with XP is totally fine. XP is far more customizable then Vista, and is a heck of a lot faster.

 

[C]

The biggest disapointment for me is the fact that Vista has still not fixed my biggest problem. What is the use of creating multiple user logins if the desktop resolution does not get saved? My dad, with bad eyesight, uses my computer and by adding just one small feature windows can sort out a whole lot of accesebility issues.If they can remember that the resolution for user😀ad is 800x600 and for user:C is 1152x864.
By doing this my dad can navigate the OS and load all the programs he needs.

 

[croc]

Not the best Vista guru... But I think you can. Try MSFN.org.

 

[C]

thank you - will read more on MSFN.org

 

[jedifenner]

Sorry, had to come back and read more. To much fun...

Anyhow, how can you say that a GUI has nothing to do with how an operating system works? Depending on the options/features selected, the operating system does get affected. At its simplest, if you change the GUI to classic, the OS does has more processing power available to it than if you have all the Aero features enabled (along with other interface features). You may believe that the GUI has nothing to do with the OS from a gaming perspective, but not from a usability/performance standpoint. How a user interfaces with a computer depends on how functional/productive they are. The better the interface, the more productive they are, thus interface is considered incredibly important.

That's why some chose to revert back to classic views, rather than learn the new interface features in Vista. Basically they feel they are more productive in the older interface, but if they would take the time to learn the new, they would most likely find at least a marginal productivity increase.

As far as speed goes, are your systems up to snuff? My installation is screaming fast, though I have a core duo, 2 GB ram and RAID 1 set of SATA drives. Please do everyone a favor and post your system specs along with your rants about how badly Vista performs. If you are trying to run it on a cheap system, you cannot expect a next generation OS to run well with all the bells and whistles turned on...

 

[jedifenner]

Respectfully, I disagree with you. Here's why:

"My opinion is that anyone who thinks they're getting a better experience by using the new interface has no clue what an interface is."
What is your definition of interface? IMO, GUI tends to equal experience, at least at first. The underlying mechanisms are ultimately the most important in an OS, but the interface is key in the beginning and often for long term success with a product. The better an interface is designed, the better experience the user is going to have. If that GUI is crap, the experience will be crap. Hell, Mac lovers will chant up and down the streets that Macs are better than PCs because of the interface alone. If an OS manufacturer creates an interface that makes it easy to navigate, find data, run programs, makes it "pretty" to look at, etc. then the overall experience will be preceived as better. Perception is reality, and if a user perceives something new GUI as good (interface or no interface) than they will say Vista is good. Just like all those who say XP is better. Is it really better? Or have you not taken the same amount of time to learn how to use its GUI to the same extent that you might have given XP. Since change is inevitable, and occurs often in this industry, you need to adapt when change is presented. Especially if you are going to support it.

"And anyone who thinks they're living in the times because they have no problems with being forced to learn a new way to do the same old tricks is clueless."
Again, how can someone who runs a "computer shop" say this? When user calls in having a problem with a new feature in Vista, are you always going to tell them to switch to classic mode? If you do, you will lose customers because they EXPECT computer professionals to be adept and knowledgeable in the latest products available. Not saying you can't have your preference, but to say you shouldn't have to learn new tricks is an instant job killer in the tech industry. If you don't learn, you lose. If you don't want to learn new ways of using Windows, then maybe its time to switch to carpentry, where the industry changes very little. Sorry, that was a little harsh... Maybe I am just different in my thinking. Maybe I am the only one who believes that if I am going to support a product, than I should know the default options for the product and know it well enough to give out advice/support. Doing otherwise would be a disservice to my customers/end users...

Off my box for now... Man I love debates! So much fun, even when they are pointless!

 

[Slobogob]

Hey Slobogob, I have to take back my initial comments about your article.

Right there i stopped reading. Why? Because i knew the rest of your post would be based on an assumption. That´s not necessarily a bad thing, but in your case its an obviously wrong assumption. At least you tried, so, get yourself a cookie. 😀

 

[Slobogob]

GUI has nothing to do with how an operating system works. I have Vista Beta 2, and Vista RC1 and Vista RTM, all Ultimate, and there really isn't anything special about them yet. Sure, they look good, but vista is completely pointless as of now, because there are no DirectX 10 games yet. Vista is a gaming operating system, and an operating system for people to start using computers on.

Vista is designed for gamers to run incredible, beautiful DirectX 10 games on. Vista is also designed for computer newbs to learn how to use a computer.

If you've been using a computer for longer then a year, and don't plan on playing newer games, sticking with XP is totally fine. XP is far more customizable then Vista, and is a heck of a lot faster.

I wouldn´t call Vista a gaming OS, but i agree that it looks like one. To me the most important features vista had to offer were cut out. One of them being the new Filesystem that was never finished and finally dismissed.

 

[darklife41]

My last post on this subject, as we're going to have to agree to disagree on most of this. It's obvious that you like Vista, which is fine. However you're not adding anything factual to convince me to like it that I haven't already tried or read before. I really don't see this as a debate. It's just a difference of opinion.

The interface is just the map that you look at to find where you're going. There's nothing you can do with the default Vista interface that you can't do with the classic view. Its simply the "look" of the system. That's why they call it the "classic view". It's all about personal preference, not a performance option. For example, my wife likes to use the "edit" button at the top of the page for copy/paste. Not me. I right click. To each their own. If you're better with Vista's default interface, power to you. I'd be seriously surprised if you could negotiate around your computer faster than I can using the classic view.

I believe that I clearly stated that I've used the Vista default interface for about 3 months. I also get a few newsletters that point out the features and problems of Vista, XP, and Linux. I spend about 4 hours every day reading about the latest hardware and software. We have computers in house running Vista Beta 2, Vista RC1, 2003 SBS, XP Pro, XP Home, 2K, 2K Server, Debian, Slackware, Linspire, Novell Desktop 10, and Novell Open Enterprise Server. I'm fairly proficient with all of them. So when a customer calls with a problem, I can usually answer their questions. If I don't know it off the top of my head, I do what every other technician in the world worth his weight in salt does. Google it.

The point is that I'm pretty familiar with Vista Ultimate already, and just don't like it. I find it slow, repetitive, redundant, and way overpriced. I see it as a downgrade to either XP or 2K unless, and as I said, a person is going to utilize the domain options as well as the media center options and DirectX game options. If a person will not use all of these, there are better OS's in my opinion. I think most people will be like me in that they won't be happy sacrificing speed for a nicer looking desktop.

As I said, I'll build anything a customer wants. But if they ask me what I recommend, I'll recommend XP unless they're in need of all the features previously mentioned. Frankly, I couldn't care less if I lose customers that prefer vendors who prefer Vista.

Our business caters to a specific niche. Our niche is quality and personal support. We don't sell bundles or build cheap systems. We have no ambitions to be any bigger than we already are and have more than enough customers as is. If you want cheap, go to Dell, HP, Gateway, Kmart or Walmart. I turn customers away every day who quote prices from the above vendors, because it's not worth the warrany issues for us to build with cheap components. We know that it does little good to put a fast CPU on a system with a crap motherboard. We know that RAM with a lifetime warranty is well worth the cost. We know that the PSU is very important as it can take every other component out with it if it goes. Thus, we build every system from scratch and customize to each user's needs, and even set the system up for them in their home if they want. The bulk of our customers have already learned why not to buy from the above vendors. They're willing to spend a little more to get something that actually works as advertised, and get in home replacements for part failures (although we've only had a couple of those in the past 4 years). We also do repairs, networking, backup data, format, and just about everything a customer can ask for. We're not in business to support MS nor any particular hardware vendor. My main focus is hardware. My software knowledge is ample to perform these tasks and match up the hardware and software that a customer needs to do whatever they want to do.

I'll show a paying customer anything they want to know... for a price. However if you want a custom spreadsheet set up or a DOS system with your own home made programs installed, I'll refer you to my wife. 🙂

And for the record, my system is not old nor slow. Specs are below, although I'll have an overclocked X6600 installed in the next week. I don't believe the final release of Vista Ultimate is much different from RC1. XP Pro is a tad faster than 2K, and Vista is slower than both on my system. While file transfers and such are about the same, programs are laggy due to the security features running in the backround, windows take longer to open, and programs take longer to start. With the components listed below, Vista Ultimate Beta 2 and RC1 tell me that I don't have enough system resources to run all it's bells and whistles at the same time. No thanx. 🙂

 

[dade49]

i know i'll move to vista at some point, but if a computer is running well there's no need to change.

Never change a running system. At least that´s what i´ve been taught.
Are you kidding? There are many reasons to change your existing system, even if it runs Windows 98/2000/XP just fine: New features, performance, etc.
If you drove a 1976 Dodge Dart for the last 30 years, and it runs just fine, do you think you'd ever upgrade it? Or get something new just because you're bored with the same old thing?

(i still haven't seen anything that would make me want to switch to vista. i know that i'd immediately go to classic interface, the xp system just added MORE clicks to do what i needed done and i'm sure vista would add even more. i haven't got any spyware or viruses (that i didn't KNOW i'd get) in the past 6-7 years, and i dont run any antivirus software, just the hardware firewall on the router. putting it simply, if you KNOW what you're doing you're not going to catch anything.)

It´s the same here. I never had really trouble with windows XP (or 2000 either). For a few years i didn´t even bother with a firewall at all. Two years ago i installed one but nothing else. I expect nothing less of windows Vista, but since i can´t predict the future (that would be handy!) i´ll see how Vista goes for a few months before i try it myself.
There are a few things in XP and Vista that take a couple more clicks, mainly, the Control Panel. Most everything though, I find is actually quite easy to navigate. To me, it makes more sence, not less.

Valis: You don't run Antivirus software? I assume that since you posted on this forum that you have Internet access. The only time that I have ever agreed to a lack of Antivirus software was when a system was in a controlled environment, without Internet access, or access to the outside world.

Slobogob: You didn't have a firewall of any kind? You're lucky is all. I'm glad that XP comes with the firewall on by default. People that are less tech savvy and don't have a hardware firewall/router need that protection.

Yesterday (While running Vista) I visited a popular, reputable web site that tried not only to install an ActiveX applet that I didn't want or need, but also tried to auto-install some type of client software. I did not click to download and install it, nor did I want it, but Vista darkened my screen, and asked me if this was ok. Of course, I canceled it. I visited the same site with XP, and after checking the registry, found that this software was auto-installed. Vista's security, while sometimes frustrating, is awesome.

There are also a lot of system level reasons to use Vista, beyond the GUI. It natively supports more than 4GB of RAM, which XP didn't to begin with. During installation, you can load device drivers via USB, or CD or any medium. In XP, and 2003 Server, this still requires a Floppy. Vista is more stable then XP is. From a business standpoint, there is a HUGE improvement in Vista with Group Policy and Active Directory Integration. Vista now supports UNIX services, something that has never worked correctly in the past.
Consider the version numbers of the last 4 Windows OS's:
Windows 2000 = NT 5.0
Windows XP = NT 5.1
Windows 2003 = NT 5.2
Windows Vista = NT 6.0

Vista is a complete overhaul on the backend of things. While I know that change is difficult for many, it is inevitable in this business. The fact that this is not a review of Vista, but the rant (oops, I mean Diary) of a mid-range techie that is wowed by the blinky lights of a Ferrari laptop makes me lose confidence in Tom's Hardware as a valid source of technical information. The reason that I'm posting here is to make sure that the readers of this forum understand that this rant (oops, I mean Diary) is out of character for this site. I'm hoping that in the future THG will decide to get a qualified person to actually do a review of a new product, and not a rant (oops, I mean Diary).

 

[dade49]

I really don't see this as a debate. It's just a difference of opinion.

Yes, for once we agree. We have different viewpoints on the subject. I think it's because of the different market you serve compared to me. I realize that this 'Diary' is in regard to Vista Ultimate, which most of your average Joe's won't buy. Its extra features are more than many people need. That's why Vista Basic exists. Most companies will be using Vista Business, or large corporations using Vista Enterprise. I really like how Microsoft has split out the different versions. Remember that XP does not have everything in it either. XP Home, XP Pro XP Media Center, XP Tablet Edition, XP Embedded. They all serve a different purpose. If you're running a Media Center at home on a PC, and paying for Vista Ultimate, you're happy to pay it. You want the features, and the only out of the box alternative costs over $1000 USD.
I hope that readers, as well as your customers, darklife41, are given the correct information about what the different versions are, what features they have, and why they should or should not buy it. Since you're a Software vendor, I am assuming that in the next 12 to 18 months, you'll be unable to sell XP anymore, because you won't be able to get it from Microsoft. Once that happens though, Vista will be mainstream, and your customers will be asking you for it anyway. Personal service always wins the hearts of customers, and as long as you give them options, they'll be happy. I think we'll all be surprised to see the retail versions of Vista. Don't judge everything based on the RC1 or RTM versions. Get a copy of Vista Basic when it gets released at the end of the month, sell it to a customer, and then follow up with them. I think many customers will enjoy Vista's fresh view of Windows.

 

[hergieburbur]

While Vista has a few features that will be appealing to the business sector (most notably the 4GB memory support, and increased "security"), Overall, I can't escape the feeling that it was put out mainly as a consumer desktop OS targeted at combatting Mac. It excels in gaming, DX10, has a shiny new interface, and seems like it would be good for productivity. It seems to me like it focuses on new PC users and basic desktop users while placing secondary importance on power users (expected) and businesses.

However, I can see a few reasons why it will be resisted in the business sector, at least at first. IE 7 breaks a lot of web apps, and is generally harder to program for (at least from our dev guys it is). A lot of older apps, which a lot of businesses rely on, will not function or even install in Vista. Many apps still have installation problems, and a lot of older devices still have driver issues. And they removed some of the truly attractive features such as the new file system. Until solutions are found for these and other issues, I cannot see it gaining widespread acceptance in the traditionally conservative business sector.

Because of all this, I think that MS's estimate of 90 million copies sold this year is a gross overestimation of the market.