Let's talk about Windows Vista

So yeah I was looking at the new website for vista last week for some reason and it doesn't seem that bad. Some of the ideas are even pretty good even though I'm sure most would say it's just taking stuff that OSX and Linux have been doing for years but hey it's finally arrived for the main market or rather it will sometime in early 2007.

I haven't seen a thread regarding Vista in a while so I wanted to know what everyone's thoughts were and if there were any tidbits and details that anyone could show me. I remember there was some sort of evil copyright system DRM or DMR or something like that that everyone was going nuts over. Anybody here know anything more about that?

Anyway, here's the website and wiki for those that are interested.

http://www.microsoft.com/Windowsvista/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

Discuss!

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I'll have to wait until my next windows computer to run it, since theres no way it'll run on this laptop. It looks neat though. A lot of nifty features that make me want to test it out.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I heard from friends that it's horrible to play games on. As in, it's mostly a business operating system.

Some games are difficult enough to run even with the most expensive stuff, without an advanced operating system weighing you down. I'd like to see if they fix this in the future (or whether it's worthwhile at all, really.)

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Elixir

I heard from friends that it's horrible to play games on. As in, it's mostly a business operating system.

Some games are difficult enough to run even with the most expensive stuff, without an advanced operating system weighing you down. I'd like to see if they fix this in the future (or whether it's worthwhile at all, really.)

That's odd, since I thought Windows wanted Vista to be marketed more towards games this time around. Windows XP was targeted towards media, video editing and such. Vista is suppose to be games.
I'm sure there will be a way, weither official or not, to tweak Windows Vista and turn off all the pretty GUI features while gaming. Infact, they did it for Windows XP. You dont HAVE to use the Fisher Price look, you can switch themes to Windows Classic. I would imagine it will be the same thing for Vista.

How ya doing, buddy?

You're probably not going to want to try to run some of the high end graphics games with Vista on a typical current hardware configuration, no, but by the time Vista finally drops, pretty much any computer you build at the time using middle to higher end hardware should not be all that problematic. Think about it, XP doesn't run real well on computers designed with the expectation of running 98. I wouldn't expect a lot of people running out and upgrading their late 2005/early 2006 PCs to Vista as soon as it is released, but people who bought/build their computers back in say 2004 might already be in the market for a new PC by the time Vista is released, and will take this into account when deciding on hardware specs.

But then, if you buy a low end {$400} Dell you aren't going to be satisfied with your performance if you run Vista on it {but would this be a surprise? probably not}.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Elixir

I heard from friends that it's horrible to play games on. As in, it's mostly a business operating system.

Hahahahaha, that's what people said about Windows 2000. Why was I even able to play games on it then.

I dunno, it played Unreal Tournament fine (like it takes much to play Unreal Tournament.)

Originally Posted by KrazyTaco

I'm sure there will be a way, weither official or not, to tweak Windows Vista and turn off all the pretty GUI features while gaming.

Vista does that already. Whenever you play full-screen games, it turns off the Aero interface, going to what I assume is the Windows XP theme engine.

Vista isn't all that bad. Messing around with Beta 2 has just crushed my baseless complaints, replacing them with complaints that are legitimate.

UAC is hilarious for it being super-paranoid. Thankfully Microsoft is reworking that for the next beta/RC release.

The performance rating shit is a joke. I rerated my computer today, not expecting much to change, but it actually lowered some of my scores. I expect my rating to go from a 1 to a 0 by the time my Ubuntu 6.06 CD comes in. I know my computer is definitely not the best for Vista, but it's like it's really just pulling numbers out of it's ass.

They've made some poor "enabled by default" choices. Once the system is setup, they apparently assume your PC is a Media Center. That's 4 services (yes, 4 for just Media Center capabilities,) that are not really necessary that are on by default. I fully expect a lengthy guide from Black Viper on what services to disable almost immediately.

Microsoft could definitely put some work into the other interfaces (non-transparent Aero and Classic,) because they don't really look nearly as nice the transparent Aero interface. For Classic, it's definitely the start menu when it's not in the classic mode. Non-transparent Aero just looks like ass, period. But even the transparent Aero needs work. Mostly like, keeping it transparent when you maximize a window. It's not like it's that muck more work on a computer to keep it transparent.

Other than a few things that haven't really popped out at me yet , it's looking pretty good. I wouldn't use it on the computer I have now, but for a future computer, I'd consider it.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I wrote up a long post of impressions on Beta 2 on another forum I frequent, and because they were so long, I will merely quote them here for you to peruse at your leisure.

Originally Posted by killmoms

I'm running a copy of Vista Beta 2 on my PC right now, as a matter of fact. There are some interesting things here, but overall this interface is an example of how Microsoft simply doesn't get it.

My biggest complaint is the widespread lack of title bars. Microsoft has stripped the title bar label out of every Explorer window, and a number of other system related windows as well. If you have a bunch of windows stacked on top of each other, it can be maddeningly frustrating to try to figure out which is which without going down to the Taskbar, reading across the titles, and selecting the one you want.

The focus problems with Beta 1 have been somewhat addressed in Beta 2... now the title bar close button in inactive windows is no longer red, and the windows are made somewhat more transparent.

Of course, the transparency issue is another thing altogether... and it is overused. Sometimes entire windows have no actual solid surface, they're just one big expanse of background-blurring glass (and "clever" moving highlight). This is most noticeable on the "Gadgets" window. Cool for about 10 seconds, until you realize that it makes everything inside the window hard to read.

As of now, the DPI scaling for the interface is pretty much just as lame as XP's. Vista scales only in set increments, and you have to reboot to see the effects—which are lame anyway, since MS has not yet made higher resolution interface elements. Even worse, most interface elements scale up with no filtering, making them a chunky, blocky mess. The Quartz 2D Extreme hooks put into Tiger (and likely to be fully utilized in Leopard) allow for real-time, arbitrary scaling of the interface.

And then there's all the shoddy OS X ripoffs. The Windows Sidebar is a pretty pale ape of Dashboard. It has all the space wasting power of Konfabulator and none of the flexibility of Dashboard—"gadgets" are lined up in a single column. If you've got more than can fit, you can page between them. Plus, they can't vary in size, making some too big (clock) and others much too small to be used effectively (notes or the calculator). It's sort of like what Dashboard would be if, instead of dragging widgets out of the storage bin to use on the Dashboard desktop, they were all just stuck there. The new Win+Tab combination is like the dumb, useless younger brother of Exposé (as Sapphire mentioned). The Taskbar previews are pretty superfluous since, by the time they pop up, you've already read the entry on the Taskbar. If the whole thing was replaced by a more graphical, window-focused Dock (instead of the app-focused Dock in OS X) it might be more useful, but as is it's just more eye-candy.

The worst part is, Microsoft is failing to steal the most convenient features of OS X! Clone Exposé for real, call it Exposure, and deal with the lawsuit later! Steal spring-loaded folders from Finder! How about the concept of clippings? Clicking and dragging images straight out of one app and into another? Come on, guys!

Plus, as Sapphire also pointed out, there's very little in the way of consistency. Even in "Aero" glass mode, when you maximize a window, it suddenly becomes a dark charcoal grey, a la the Taskbar. Wha? Vista feels very un-unified, even worse than the multiplicity of styles in OS X.

The Control Panel is, at the moment, a royal mess. Not only are there a ton more of them (51 at the moment), familiar panels like "Display Properties" or "Add/Remove Programs" have been renamed to the much more vague "Personalization" and "Programs." These, as well as a couple others, divide the old panels up into several text "links" with descriptions... that merely open one tab of the old panels anyway. I hope they at least plan to make everything into the new style they're playing with, because at the moment it's frustratingly inconsistent.

These are just a few issues I've encountered. I'll leave performance judgments until later—obviously this is still just Beta 2, which leaves at least some time for improvements on that front (as well as improvements in the graphics drivers). It is interesting to see that Vista seems to have the same problems with window resizing as OS X did (and to a certain extent, still does).

EDIT: I didn't mention it above, but Merv is right—UAC warns you about EVERY DAMN THING. I turned it off within a half-hour of starting Beta 2 up. And for those who might be confused about my reference to Sapphire's Win+Tab observations, that's the one where it basically makes a slightly rotated 3D stack of windows and flips through them.

FELIPE NO

I won't address this much right now, but I'll put in a word or 2. I know this is not a technical review, but these are my views with what I see MS trying TO DO with Vista.

The way I see Vista, I just can't support it. Microsoft is going the extra step with this one, and they are pushing their proprietary ideas to the forefront. If any of you saw the MS conference @ E3, you know what I mean. They are trying to lock things down, so that MS products do everything. What I see in Vista is MS trying to be everything to everyone, and I just can't see them succedding in that. They are making the OS so huge to do all this stuff... And that's not what I want. I'm looking for an OS to be less, and allow OTHER programs to do more. It's kinda like my political views: Less government/laws, the better off we are. Same with OS's, the less is more.

The DRM thing is gonna be insane BTW. MS is siding with MPAA and the RIAA, and if they have their way, we will have to buy every song and movie, once for each of our protable players, once for each of our computers, and once for the disc players in the house. By including HDCP (etc.) in the internals of the OS, Microsoft gives these corporations the power to choose when, where, and how we listen and watch WHAT WE ALREADY BOUGHT AND PAID FOR.

You might think I'm nuts for saying this stuff, but I want a 'free' computer, one that I control, not MS or anyone else.

Needless to say, I'm thinking more Mac or Linux these days as the Vista beast is slowly rolling in.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by killmoms

And for those who might be confused about my reference to Sapphire's Win+Tab observations, that's the one where it basically makes a slightly rotated 3D stack of windows and flips through them.

That I did not know about. But that's probably more used to just alt-tabbing or (when I can use it) just hitting the application switch button on my MX1000.

But you're right, compared to Expose, it's really retarded. Microsoft probably threw it in to go "OOOOOOOH LOOK WHAT ELSE WE'VE ADDED!"

Most amazing jew boots

Vista was supose to be the operating system with the overhaul of the interface design, security, and file system. Instead it is nothing like that. It has a semi 3d interface with alot of transperancy, a tiny bit better security, and the same old NTFS file system.

Now, instead of Vista it will be Vienna that gets WinFS, a complete security overhaul, and a differtent UI design.

I was looking forward to Vista only for WinFS back when Microsoft said Vista would have it. But now it will be released seperately down the road and come built in on Vienna. The interface is going to be completely changed. They're getting rid of the start menu and the explorer shell. That means no more taskbar. They're suposedly looking into using something like the dock in OSX, heh. The security will be largely upgraded as well. Basicly all software will run in a sandbox. So if any bad code tries to run it's stuck in that sandbox and cannot access the OS. Which was also supose to be in Vista, wasn't it?
But now it too is not. Seeing a pattern here?

To me, Vista is nothing more than another Windows ME. A previous design with added eye candy and minimal features. The real upgrade will be afterwards. =/ Really.. Vista just comes off as a 'hey we're not done with the REAL OS so have this to hold you over'.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Not sure if this is accurate, but I remember a discussion in my Operating Systems class (last year) about how Vista was supposed to handle drivers differently. Whereas XP will throw up a BSOD if a driver fails, Vista is supposed to actually catch the error and keep it from bringing down the entire system. Anyone know if this is true? And aside from the UI, has anyone actually tried using Vista casually?

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Magic

Not sure if this is accurate, but I remember a discussion in my Operating Systems class (last year) about how Vista was supposed to handle drivers differently. Whereas XP will throw up a BSOD if a driver fails, Vista is supposed to actually catch the error and keep it from bringing down the entire system. Anyone know if this is true? And aside from the UI, has anyone actually tried using Vista casually?

Yes, I have. The fact that my long list of impressions are mostly UI based is not coincidental—that and decreased performance (and an annoying UAC) is basically all that's different in Vista at the moment. No WinFS or anything else particularly exciting or new. In my few days with Vista my primary reactions were to the most obvious things, namely that the UI was a step down, not up, and that my games ran significantly slower.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Brave new world...

Your impressions in the longer post brought a smile to my face. After having fun with Linux for years now, this all sounds like the coach of the other team purposefully shot his best players in the leg. And then there's this air of finality about Vista, like this was the last stand of the MS operating systems (and maybe the proprietary development model altogether). Because - like Dayvon said - Microsoft will try to abuse their (fading) monopoly to no end, enforcing DRM and the use of their own products.

So hopefully people will finally wake up on a broader scale and realize how they're being screwed all over again and US and EU courts will prohibit the inclusion of numerous programs and technologies right away. Of course, it might just not happen after all - this I'd blame on the lack of public awareness or unwillingless to acknowledge just how important computers and digital media are in our everyday life.

I was speaking idiomatically.

My take on Vista, I installed it, I toyed around with it for a day, and I came away underwhelmed. Most of what was unique and cool from previous builds slowly got stripped away and all that is left is XP with a bulkier UI. At least my sound drivers work with it this time without locking the system up.

The biggest annoyance is that it's messed with the bootloader so now I have to manually select Windows XP instead of Vista every time the computer starts up. Does anyone know how to reset the bootloader back to the original XP version?

Most amazing jew boots

I'm just curious on how vista will operate in a domain environment with Server 2003. I hope GPO's will have the exact same effect as if they were applied on a XP machine. Actually, I'd much rather have the new server generation to be able to configure all machine settings from GPO ;_;

I'm encountering some problems now, mainly with user profiles. TO solve this, i have to configure local policies on the machine. I find this to be rather ridiculous and you should be able to centrally manage all settings using GPOs, but noooo.

Where's Novell + ZEN when you need them ;_;

And at work, I'm definately not going to purchase Vista until I'm sure it secure enough to get it and I'm positive it'll work well in a 2003 environment. Or better. And then there's the demand of the end-user, of course.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

Does anyone know how to reset the bootloader back to the original XP version?

Mine did the same thing. Only thing that worked for me was reinstalling Windows XP. For some reason it automatticly uses the bootloader from the most recent OS you installed. i installed Vista, used its bootloader, installed Linux a day later on my other partition, and then ITS bootloader was showing up, then XP over linux(i cant get myself to like linux) and ITS bootloader was running. Thats all the help i can give.....

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

That's because when a bootloader is installed it overwrites the previous one, since they're all written to the master boot record of the hard-drive. Whereas Linux's bootloaders (GRUB/LILO) have separate installers that you can run on your own, I don't know of a program that installs the Windows bootloader other than an actual Windows install. What's even more annoying is that I can't figure out how to get it to go away when you've only got one Windows install (after previously having two) so that it'll just boot straight into Windows and not ask you to pick. Last time I messed with the boot.ini it created a whole mess of problems, so I don't dare touch that.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I dunno about the bootloader but it just gave me an option to select between XP and Vista the last time I tried (first public beta, a year ago).

Dunno about you guys, but I'm looking forward to Vista. The GUI looks awesome, it's the first time I'm actually considering switching from the Windows Classic theme. That and the drop of GDI and using d3d acceleration is a reason in itself to use it. I don't care about the new features much, as long as it can be stripped down to work the way I'm used to it I'm OK.
I am do concerned about over bloating the OS though. Windows XP is a bitch to strip down to basic levels, but I've seen it running fine on a 300mhz non-intel cpu. I hope that Vista will not have that much bloat loaded on it, but I doubt it will happen. That and over-DRMing it are my only concerns.

If I had spare HD space I would've already installed the latest beta. My sad sad 160 gigster has been running on 5gb free space (spanning over 3 volumes) since months by now. I really need a new hdd and I think I'll be able to get a huge one soon (if I won't find some kickass CPU bundle anyway).

There's nowhere I can't reach.

So far I haven't seen anything in the marketing spiel about how there will be any kind of performance improvements. I like to work on my computer. I like my important programs to get more CPU time and memory so I can do more. I don't want a lifestyle (clear, connected, cunt-soaked or something), I want a functional, efficient machine. This is why i'm still on Windows 2000 with Windows XPx64 as a backup. They aren't perfect either but better the devil you know. I don't like Steve jobs but he could make a killing in the PC OS market if he wanted to.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I've been playing with beta 2 for a few days now, I can't really get used to it to be honest. It's pretty vague some stuff, like in the control panel some of the options have now been renamed ("Personalisation" wtf is that shit?!) which is pretty confusing, has thrown the learning curve up a bit.
Furthermore I just seem to be getting lost while using it, I'm not a novice or anything, but I just get the feeling that there are a lot of "top level" folders, whereas before on XP the Desktop was seen as the (albiet virtual) top level folder, now it seems that we have "desktop, user name folder, computer" top levels, which is quite confusing really. It's strange, it's not that much different from XP, but then it also is. It looks pretty, but then they've stolen a lot of stuff from OS X to be honest, some of it done badly (flip3d is the prime example i can think of).

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by British Chris

Furthermore I just seem to be getting lost while using it, I'm not a novice or anything, but I just get the feeling that there are a lot of "top level" folders, whereas before on XP the Desktop was seen as the (albiet virtual) top level folder, now it seems that we have "desktop, user name folder, computer" top levels, which is quite confusing really.

Computer is the top level, Username Folder is within that and Desktop within that. It takes some adjustment but it's essentially what Unix has been doing for decades.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Magic

That's because when a bootloader is installed it overwrites the previous one, since they're all written to the master boot record of the hard-drive. Whereas Linux's bootloaders (GRUB/LILO) have separate installers that you can run on your own, I don't know of a program that installs the Windows bootloader other than an actual Windows install. What's even more annoying is that I can't figure out how to get it to go away when you've only got one Windows install (after previously having two) so that it'll just boot straight into Windows and not ask you to pick. Last time I messed with the boot.ini it created a whole mess of problems, so I don't dare touch that.

For Windows XP if you go Start -> Run -> msconfig and go into the boot.ini tab, you can set whichever OS you want as the default and set the timeout time to 1 second. That should minimize the selection problem without having to actually muck around with changing filepaths and that sort of stuff.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by evilboris

Dunno about you guys, but I'm looking forward to Vista. The GUI looks awesome, it's the first time I'm actually considering switching from the Windows Classic theme. That and the drop of GDI and using d3d acceleration is a reason in itself to use it. I don't care about the new features much, as long as it can be stripped down to work the way I'm used to it I'm OK.

Except GDI isn't really gone, that's the bitch of it. Whereas OS X could make a clean break from its OS 9's old QuickDraw roots, Windows can't drop GDI so easily—what about all the apps that rely on it now which people will still need to run? Running Trillian or Steam or Winamp on Vista is painful—they're drawing with GDI, and interactions between DWM windows and GDI windows are not at all graceful at the moment.

Besides that, like I said before, it seems Microsoft aren't trying to use DWM to speed up their interface or accomplish productivity-increasing things, merely add eye-candy—eye-candy that is functionality-impairing no less.

FELIPE NO

OS X has Classic and it still draws classic program windows with the OS 9 look. Theoretically, MS could do something similar while they push people to upgrade their software. Then again, there are businesses that have to buy emulators of their old computers because it isn't "cost effective" for them to upgrade.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by RABicle

Computer is the top level, Username Folder is within that and Desktop within that. It takes some adjustment but it's essentially what Unix has been doing for decades.

Does anyone have a screenshots or diagrams that illustrate this new structure? I'm curious.

How ya doing, buddy?