Honest opinions on Vista

Ekiqa · Post by **Ekiqa** » 2007-04-23 12:03pm

I just got Vista Ultimate (for free).

I would like to know people's honest opinions on their experiences.
Not a standard rant against anything of M$.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-04-23 12:11pm

I bought a copy of Home Premium a couple of weeks ago, and aside from a minor driver issue and a few qualms with Adobe Acrobat, I haven't had any serious problems with it. Overall I like the newer interface, and it runs surprisingly smoothly on my laptop. They could do a much better job in handling thumbnails, however. So far, these are my only real complaints.

General Deathdealer · Post by **General Deathdealer** » 2007-04-23 12:16pm

The only problem I have run into is that some games are not fully compatible with Vista. For example, I have been trying to run Heroes of Might and Magic V on it, but it runs super slow, and then locks up after about a minute. But the same game runs fine on my other computer with XP.
I think Vista will be a good OS once all of the bugs are worked out.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2007-04-23 12:40pm

I got a copy of Business 'Express Upgrade' with my Dell laptop.
I promptly went back to XP because of a video driver (it doesn't have *any* color controls in it) issue with the quadro 120nvs video card.

Color controls are kind of important on a laptop display that 'out of the box' has a noticeable blue tint to it.

That said, I have Ultimate installed from the same DVD (as a preview with no key) on my desktop machine, and my feelings are mixed.

It works with almost all of my apps, but I haven't been able to find a good reliable virtual drive application.
This isn't really MS's fault, but HP is in their usual 'fuck the customer' mode when it comes to providing Vista drivers for printers and scanners that aren't currently in stores.
I don't really expect them to make a driver for my old LJ1200, but I'm not being unreasonable in expecting them to make a Vista driver for my Photosmart printer that's less than 2 years old.

However, HP thinks differently:

This download includes a Print Driver only. This driver makes it possible to use the basic functions for the printer. HP will not be providing a Full Featured Vista Software and Driver for this product; therefore, some functionality may be lost when you use this product with Windows Vista.

XP's been out for so long that I'd forgotten about Hewlett-Packard's track history of asshattery WRT drivers for non current hardware.

One thing that does bug me is that no matter how often I set my view preference (details) for menus, I keep getting tiles when I try to open a file from within a program.
Once my time's up, I'll probably wipe the drive and stick with XP for the time being.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2007-04-23 01:15pm

http://winvistaforums.com/windows-vista ... sta-2.html

Possible workaround.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2007-04-23 01:45pm

I have a question. Short of disconnecting my existing hard drive from my mobo, is there a way to force Vista to install itself on a completely new hard drive without touching my existing XP installation?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-04-23 01:56pm

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:I have a question. Short of disconnecting my existing hard drive from my mobo, is there a way to force Vista to install itself on a completely new hard drive without touching my existing XP installation?

Apparently, yes.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2007-04-23 02:27pm

Pu-239 wrote:http://winvistaforums.com/windows-vista ... sta-2.html

Possible workaround.

That worked.
Thanks.

I forgot to list the positives:

I shot a bunch of DV footage of my grandnephew's first T-Ball game, and I decided to do a quick movie using Vista's version of Windows Movie Maker and Windows DVD Maker.
The process was pretty simple, as MS does have the 'ease of use' bit down pat by now.
My only quibbles are that I couldn't edit imported soundtracks for length within the program and that I couldn't specify the amount of time for the sound to fade in/out, and I didn't see an option within DVD Maker (I may have just overlooked it) to put sound in on the menu screens.
Other than those issues, Ultimate's built in movie tools are pretty slick.

The Aero UI, once you get used to it, is pretty easy to navigate around in and if you have a widescreen monitor, 'Show Windows Side By Side' is pretty nice.

Civil War Man · Post by **Civil War Man** » 2007-04-23 03:32pm

Just got a laptop with Vista (desktop died). Since it is a newer OS, campus NetOps is still working out how to get it to connect to the wireless network (which requires certificates and all that shit). Works fine on the LAN, though.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2007-04-23 03:46pm

Works fine here.

DarkSilver · Post by **DarkSilver** » 2007-04-23 04:33pm

no problems with the OS itself, just a occasional driver problem here and there (mostly with the video cards, but that's nvidia's problem not MS').

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2007-04-23 09:20pm

In my experiences with it, I have only 3 major complaints that I feel the need to vent on.

1) Performance
This above all else. It reduces dual-core machines to a steaming pile of crap unless you have 2 GB of RAM. You need 1 GB to even consider operating it; a friend has a 1.83 GHz Core 2 Duo and 512 MB of RAM, and I would consider it unusable (having had very few computers, he doesn't realize how bad it is; my machine runs Windows XP in a VM faster).

2) UAC.
It's annoying. It's annoying to the point of defeating the purpose; it trains users to click accept to get rid of the annoying popup without reading what it says, and even enter their password.

3) GUI inconsistency.
It looks like a bad Linux distro. No offense, Linux guys. 3D effects are overdone when Aero is on, things have been changed for no reason making it difficult for me to find my way around when looking for more advanced things, and the GUI is inconsistent between different apps. And why is the back button in the top left while the next is in the bottom right during Wizards?

That's about it, really. There are quite a few major improvements over XP (security, graphics, searching, etc), but those three gripes are what stands out to me.

It should be noted that I do not own a Vista PC; I've just had to work on a number of them. If I did own them, I'm sure I would get used to where things are now located, I'd probably turn off UAC, and I'd get 2 GB of RAM to make it usable. But they're still gripes.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2007-04-23 09:24pm

General Deathdealer wrote:The only problem I have run into is that some games are not fully compatible with Vista. For example, I have been trying to run Heroes of Might and Magic V on it, but it runs super slow, and then locks up after about a minute. But the same game runs fine on my other computer with XP.
I think Vista will be a good OS once all of the bugs are worked out.

My friend with the Vista laptop had trouble with SWAT3 locking up on certain levels.

All other games worked fine. Only ran into some minor trouble with some games being blocked from LAN play by Vista's security and the game running in full screen supressed the notification.

I'll consider getting Vista after the first service pack, methinks.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2007-04-23 09:49pm

Praxis wrote: 1) Performance
This above all else. It reduces dual-core machines to a steaming pile of crap unless you have 2 GB of RAM. You need 1 GB to even consider operating it; a friend has a 1.83 GHz Core 2 Duo and 512 MB of RAM, and I would consider it unusable (having had very few computers, he doesn't realize how bad it is; my machine runs Windows XP in a VM faster).

Are you running Aero? We've got it running on a P4 with 560Mb RAM with no real issues using less visual flash.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2007-04-23 09:50pm

I've been using Vista Ultimate 64-bit since it came out (through my office's MSDN account). It's interface is a damn sight better than XP's, and good bit more responsive. It runs good on 2GB of RAM, but it loves 4GB. I currently have UAC off, since I'm using a beta sound driver, but even when its on, UAC isn't too intrusive. Speaking of drivers, all I really need is an official 64-bit driver for my sound card (X-Meridian), and I'll be set. The newest "official" beta drivers from Nvidia (158.18 ) run great - they're stable, with excellent image quality, performance is competitive with XP's driver (better, in same cases), and SLI works like a charm (now if my PSU hadn't lobotomized itself...). The only issue I had was some BSODs due to Creative's X-Fi driver, which is typical for Creative, and caused me to pull the X-Fi out of my system.

For mainstream users, I'd think after another month or two, to allow for more driver support, Vista is going to be a solid, dependable day-to-day OS. I don't see any reason to wait for a service pack.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-04-23 10:26pm

Praxis wrote:In my experiences with it, I have only 3 major complaints that I feel the need to vent on.

1) Performance
This above all else. It reduces dual-core machines to a steaming pile of crap unless you have 2 GB of RAM. You need 1 GB to even consider operating it; a friend has a 1.83 GHz Core 2 Duo and 512 MB of RAM, and I would consider it unusable (having had very few computers, he doesn't realize how bad it is; my machine runs Windows XP in a VM faster).

Even a vanilla Windows XP install can be pretty sluggish with a mere 512mb of ram, so I'm not sure why anyone would consider Vista to be any different. (Anyone with a new computer should have at least 1gb of ram these days anyways).

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2007-04-23 10:34pm

Praxis wrote: 3) GUI inconsistency.
It looks like a bad Linux distro.

Didn't someone post screenshots awhile of Vista's inconsistency?

GNOME isn't really that inconsistent so long as you stick to GTK/GNOME/Java w/ GTK LAF enabled apps (which is easily doable since the more important apps are on GNOME anyway- for example, there's no KDE equivalent to GIMP). The only apps I run that don't look native/have decent emulation are command line apps (obviously), blender (many opengl apps have their own custom UI), mplayer, and vncviewer (which really doesn't have a UI).

KDE really doesn't have any corporate backing other than Trolltech. Face it KDE fans, the Linux desktop shall unify under GNOME

.

As for Arrow's comments, many computers nowadays still don't have 2 gigs of RAM.... that said, similar things could have been said of XP when it came out...

EDIT in reply to Zod:
I find XP runs perfectly fine on 512. It's 256 where the agony begins (even on Linux too w/ XFCE, though that may be firefox alone that is responsible + slow laptop hard drive).

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2007-04-23 10:35pm

Sharp-kun wrote:
Praxis wrote: 1) Performance
This above all else. It reduces dual-core machines to a steaming pile of crap unless you have 2 GB of RAM. You need 1 GB to even consider operating it; a friend has a 1.83 GHz Core 2 Duo and 512 MB of RAM, and I would consider it unusable (having had very few computers, he doesn't realize how bad it is; my machine runs Windows XP in a VM faster).
Are you running Aero? We've got it running on a P4 with 560Mb RAM with no real issues using less visual flash.

Yes, Aero.

Even a vanilla Windows XP install can be pretty sluggish with a mere 512mb of ram, so I'm not sure why anyone would consider Vista to be any different. (Anyone with a new computer should have at least 1gb of ram these days anyways).

He just bought the new computer two months ago, it shipped with 512 MB. I've been running on 512 MB of RAM until just last month; since I upgraded my MacBook to 2 GB (my desktop PC is still 512 MB).

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2007-04-23 10:37pm

Well, running Aero is probably your problem right there.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2007-04-23 10:38pm

Praxis wrote: He just bought the new computer two months ago, it shipped with 512 MB. I've been running on 512 MB of RAM until just last month; since I upgraded my MacBook to 2 GB (my desktop PC is still 512 MB).

Then turn Aero off? If your PC can handle it it doesn't really cause any slowdown that I've noticed, but if it can't then I've seen it cause problems.

You don't need 1Gb of RAM to consider operating it if you use appropriate settings. You don't lose anything by not having it pretty.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-04-23 10:53pm

Pu-239 wrote:
EDIT in reply to Zod:
I find XP runs perfectly fine on 512. It's 256 where the agony begins (even on Linux too w/ XFCE, though that may be firefox alone that is responsible + slow laptop hard drive).

Perhaps if all you plan on doing is internet surfing, though anything more than that definitely requires at least 1gb. Especially anything involving networking or gaming. (Trying to access the network to get files of the company I work from on a machine using 512mb a couple weeks ago was painful to say the least).

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 2007-04-24 05:12pm

Aparently there's work arounds for the UAC

El Reg reports

Developers have discovered that the name given to a Vista executable affects whether or not it will require admin rights to run.

Security experts said the feature might seem odd, but helps to catch out spyware.

Reg Reader Mike, a C++ developer, discovered the behaviour after spending days trying to work out why just some of his projects required elevation (admin rights) to be run on his Windows Vista machine. To his disbelief, Mike realised that the different properties were simply due to projects being named differently.

"If Vista sees that you have created a Microsoft Visual C++ project with install in the project name, then that .exe will automatically require Admin Rights to run. Create exactly the same project, but call it, say, Fred, and the problem disappears," he explained. "Vista's security isn't just concerned with what an .exe is doing to your PC, but what it's actually called."
Mr Executable
We put these points to Microsoft, which responded with a statement that explained why installation programs might need admin privileges to run but not why this changes depending on the name given to a project.

"Installation programs are applications designed to deploy software, and most write to system directories and registry keys. These protected system locations are typically writable only by an administrator user, which means that standard users do not have sufficient access to install programs. Windows Vista heuristically detects installation programs and requests administrator credentials or approval from the administrator user in order to run with access privileges. Windows Vista also heuristically detects updater and uninstallation programs. Note that a design goal of UAC [User Account Control] is to prevent installations from being executed without the user's knowledge and consent since they write to protected areas of the file system and registry," it said.

Secure coding specialist Fortify Software said Microsoft's Installer Detection technology acted as a screen against spyware. While imperfect, and odd in the way its behaviour is affected by the names given to project, the feature is better than nothing.

"The Vista feature you've run into is the equivalent of an airport metal detector," explained Dr Brian Chess, chief scientist at Fortify Software

Spyware is a big problem on Windows (yet another reason I have a Mac), and Vista takes steps to make spyware harder to write. By default, programs under Vista don't run with administrator privileges. By requiring administrator privileges to run something that looks like an installer, Vista is making it more difficult for a program to automatically throw some unsavoury gunk on to your machine without your knowledge.

"This is a little bit silly: just name the installer something else, and Vista lets it through," Chess said. He added that although the feature is imperfect and inconvenient, it's "better than nothing". ®

Heaven forbid that they make you authenticate for programs that access the registry/ protected areas instead of programs named "install"

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-04-24 05:17pm

That seems kind of broken. . .logically you think this would make it easier for people to install spyware. What kind of hacker except an incompetent one is actually going to label his executable as an installation file in the file name itself?

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2007-04-24 05:32pm

Lisa wrote:Heaven forbid that they make you authenticate for programs that access the registry/ protected areas instead of programs named "install"

They do that as well, however this workaround, and it is a workaround, is probably in place so that non-UAC aware install apps don't crash and burn when they reach a point that they require elevation (and they almost always will since writing to Program Files requires it). Rather then have that issue happen and get slammed for poor compatibility, Vista requires the elevation before executing the install - and one of the criteria seems to be the simplistic naming detection. I'm pretty sure all the popular installers are handled more intelligently, but this is likely in place to catch strange homebrew ones.

You can get a feeling for the type of crashing and burning that would happen otherwise by trying to unrar a file with WinRAR into Program Files - it fails and you get a misleading error (unless they fixed it in the mean time - I'm using a month or two old version).

Zod, thats just it - without the elevation the spyware will not be able to write in system directories, and as such be unable to cause damage.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-04-24 05:36pm

Netko wrote:
Zod, thats just it - without the elevation the spyware will not be able to write in system directories, and as such be unable to cause damage.

Ah, it seems I misread what the article was saying. For a moment it sounded as if programs without install in their filename would automatically be allowed to run instead of being given a security popup.