Windows Vista RC1 released and not lookin' so hot

[Benfea]

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34268

Fer cryin' out loud, Microsoft. This is supposed to be a release candidate beta, isn't it? Yeesh.

Judging from this review, either the release of Windows Vista is going to be delayed or it's going to be a piece of crap when it first hits the streets. Aw heck, given Microsoft's past history it could easily be both.

[niceypoo]

1. actually its the first NON BETA

it is shipping with some new systems already. We can't get anything to work on it at my work.....like Novell, for instance...they have a long way to go...

[high density]

2. Not to defend Vista or Microsoft...

But this guy's buggy RAID controller and sound card drivers are probably the fault of nVidia and Creative Labs, not Microsoft. One should definitely expect to reboot when installing motherboard platform drivers (which most people install exactly once), so this guy's level of nitpicking is going beyond reasonable. It really makes me doubt the rest of his judgement.

That said, I'm not going to be running out and buying Vista since there's no reason for me to upgrade at this point. I haven't tried RC1 so I can't comment on it, but Beta 2 was pretty useless.

[Benfea]

14. I'm not buying that.

nVidia's chipsets are one of the most common chipsets on the AMD platform, and Creative makes the dominant sound card on the planet. There's no excuse for Microsoft getting it wrong this late in the game.

[arcos]

32. My Vista RC1 works perfectly...

But I'm not using it because Creative has not released fairly working drivers for my sound card, at least for the x64 version of Vista.

Creative may make THE dominant sound card on the planet, but their drivers have always been pretty lousy.

[Benfea]

36. Creative Labs is NOTORIOUS for crappy software and drivers....

...but that doesn't change the fact that Windows XP worked with all Creative products (at least creative products released before Windows XP) right out of the box.

[survivor999]

29. nVidia rocks!

Never had a problem with their videocards... Microsoft, on the other hand...

[Benfea]

34. nVidia got to where they are with good driver development.

When nVidia was clawing their way to the top, one of the things they did to crush the competition was to hire a bigger software team than any of their competitors. Drivers were of better quality, and more importantly driver versions were released at a much higher rate, so you didn't have to wait as long to see a bug that affected you (e.g. a particular incompatibility with a particular game) get quashed.

nVidia does screw a few things up, but they're generally quite solid when it comes to drivers. It's the reason I happily switched to an nForce board when I did.

When Windows XP shipped, it supported all the most major components right out of the box. If your hardware wasn't obscure and if it was purchased before XP came out, the appropriate drivers were installed when you installed the OS. Because of that, I put off upgrading an old computer for a long time because I liked not having to muck around with mobo drivers. It's looking like Vista won't live up to that standard.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Probly both.

I can't see Microsoft settling for only one level of catastrophe when two are within their grasp.

[Garbo 2004]

30. LOL. Had to laugh. Nicely put. n/t

[madrchsod]

4. yup a piece of spyware crap

the whole dam program is loaded with spyware and the inability to transfer files...this is just one example

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34523
Microsoft Media Player shreds your rights

[Benfea]

15. Holy crap!

Thanks for the heads up. Whenever I get around to installing Vista, I will not be using Windows Media Player any more.

Hello, Winamp!

[mike_c]

5. LOL-- I'll wait to make sure that Vista isn't a return...

...to the good old days of Win98 before I spend any money on it.

[boolean]

7. Win98 was the BEST

Seriously...Win98 was probably the best version of the OS that came out...
Win2000 comes at a close second.

Win ME, though, I still can't understand why they even bothered!

[mike_c]

10. well, I used to crash it daily-- I still have issues on the one computer..

...I have Win98 on-- an older laptop with insufficient RAM to run XP. I agree about WinME, however-- it was bloody awful!

[Benfea]

26. Windows ME was an abomination.

It was even worse than Mac OS 9.x!

[personman]

11. Windows was pretty much garbage until they started using the NT kernel

Around the time Windows 95 came out, a more robust version of windows called Windows NT came out. NT had a far more stable kernel but didn't support plug-n-play, older MS-DOS based programs and some of the other features home users were more likely to need. Windows 95, 98, 98SE and ME are all based off of the Windows 9x kernel, Windows 2000, Windows XP and Vista are all based off of the NT kernel(which has since been updated with plug-n-play and other home features).

I agree that Windows 98SE is probably the best of the Windows 9x family, but I personally think both Windows 2000 and XP blow it away. Windows ME was mostly a disaster as far as my experience with it.

Just my 2 cents. Didn't mean to ramble, just thought some people might find the background info interesting. :)

-personman

[boolean]

12. Vista is based on NT?

You sure about that? I've read that Vista was built from SCRATCH, which is why, incidentally, it's taken so long.

[personman]

13. Sure now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_of_the_Windows_NT_operating_system_line

"Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, and Windows Vista are all part of the Windows NT family of Microsoft operating systems."

[Benfea]

25. Even if they built it from scratch...

...there's still no mistaking the relationship to the NT family.

[SharonAnn]

31. No, Win98 SE was the best. The SE - Second Edition is the key.

[Nomad559]

6. The Inquirer Is now the equivalent to Newsmax

I've read so much crap on the Inquirer that was not true these past few weeks that ... oh screw It, some people will believe what they want to believe.

I've been beta testing Vista for two years now, and It has always run very well on my system, I just Installed Vista (Build 5728) that was released yesterday, and It is running perfectly on my system.

:)

[Benfea]

18. How do DirectX 9 games run on Vista?

DirectX 10 will not be backwards compatible, so games based on previous versions of DirectX will go through some kind of wacky emulated API that will reduce performance... the only thing is I want to know by how much.

[itsrobert]

8. I'm done upgrading for a few years

I'm happy with XP. It's been stable on all my family's computers and at work. I haven't had a headache like I did for 98.

I see no reason for me to upgrade at this time.

[longship]

9. What do you expect? It's Microsoft.

Use Mac OS X.
Use Linux.

Both are far, far superior in stability, safety, and power.

Myself, I chose Linux--for over a decade now.
I refuse to put Microsoft junk on my computers.
Six computers running 24/7, all Linux, no reboots--ever.

[Benfea]

16. No can do.

I'm a gamer, and I'd rather not have to run my games through an emulator, thank you very much.

[WFF]

27. The new Macs can run both MacOSX and Windows

It's not like the old days of Virtual PC

[Benfea]

33. Oh, that's right.

However, the boxes are still more expensive. :(

[originalpckelly]

20. Or FreeBSD...

it is actually quite easy to install. The ports collection makes installing apps a breeze.

[kiahzero]

17. Well

Judging from this review, either the release of Windows Vista is going to be delayed or it's going to be a piece of crap when it first hits the streets. Aw heck, given Microsoft's past history it could easily be both.

Judging from it being a Microsoft product, the Windows Vista will be a piece of crap forever.

[Benfea]

22. Nah.

Windows NT, Win2k and WinXP have been quite stable for me, even if WinXP is a resource hog.

[kiahzero]

23. On that count, yeah

I'm looking forward to getting a new laptop so I won't have to use Windows anymore. There are enough games that support Mac OS now that I feel like I can switch, so at that point I'll move my desktop over to Unix.

My issues with Windows are largely tied to Microsoft's anticompetitive practices in their software... I'm *not* a fan of vendor lock in, exorbitant software costs, poorly designed architectures (who integrates a web browser into the OS?) or buggy software that constantly has to be patched.

[Benfea]

24. Eh, I'm perfectly happy with PC/Windows

And no, I'm not a platform snob about it. I provided support for Macs in the corporate world for years.

The problem with Macs is that you pay a premium for them, and for my home computers, I can save a ton of money by building my own (as I can generally reuse parts from my old computer). The way I see it, if you're going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a computer, the least you can do is spend a little extra time learning how to use a (slightly) more complex OS. Although Macs are gaining ground in the game arena, there are still quite a few games I like which are not available for the Mac and never will be, which means if I want to play them, I'll need to use a resource-hogging, performance-sapping emulator.

Oddly enough, I happen to think Macs make great computers for the corporate environment, particularly for your average executive and cubicle monkey, who only really need Office (available on Mac and highly compatible with the PC version), a browser, and an email client. The main drawback is that most existing custom relational database apps are Windows-specific, and that's a killer for an existing office, but if you're starting a company from scratch, Macs are worth considering (you can write your custom database and make it compatible for both Macs and PCs if you choose the right product and design it right).

Contrary to popular belief, Macs aren't any more stable than PCs, but the advantage is that when you have a software/configuration problem, Macs can usually be fixed faster. Now that Macs run on more or less the same hardware as PCs, one of the big drawbacks of Macs that used to exist is more or less moot unless you're unlucky enough to blow out the mobo.

[Moochy]

19. Has anyone seen the ridiculous pricing?

The "professional edition" vista, you know, the one with VPN built-in, like XP Professional...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/29/ms_vista_canada/
Microsoft today provided the most concrete evidence to date that it will actually ship Windows Vista. It released pricing for the operating system on its Canadian web site by mistake.

According to Microsoft's own site, the Home Basic version of Vista will ship at the same price as Windows XP Home edition – US$233. Customers will then have to pay extra - $269 - for the Home Premium version of Vista that works with Media Center and Tablet PC systems.

Business customers can expect to see a price break with the new OS. Microsoft has priced Vista Business at $341 versus $386 for XP Professional. The super duper Vista Ultimate which has Media Center tools along with the Aero 3D GUI and extra security technology will cost a whopping $449.

oh and here:

[Benfea]

21. Yeah, it sucks, but that's life under a monopoly.

If Microsoft had any serious competition, there's no way they'd be charging this much for an OS, but there isn't so they do. And yes, I'll be plunking down the extra $36 just for the Aero interface. I'm such a damned sheep.

[sofa king]

28. Service Pack 2 Rule in effect?

At least, that's the rule of thumb I was always taught. Don't buy a Windows OS until SP2.

I waited until SP1 for XP before I brought Lamont, The Son of Sanford to life. Lamont has been a good computer. Far more stable than the original Sanford Box, which of course reinforces my high opinion of my own computer building skills. But I think the NT kernel had a lot more to do with it than I did.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. Actually, I've Heard Several People Say It's Really Good. Some On DU Are

quite pleased with it as well. I'm sure when it comes out it will overall be a really good system.