Sun burst installation
Mark Kaelin is a CBS Interactive Senior Editor for TechRepublic. He is the host for the Microsoft Windows and Office blog, the Google in the Enterprise blog, the Five Apps blog and the Big Data Analytics blog.
I don't see why anyone would really get excited about this.... Ubuntu and OSX are still much more visually appealing.
Apart from the glossy appearance, a few more features( which at the moment don't seem that appetizing) I feel it just maybe the follow up to the Vista, though I'd like to proven wrong!
If you have any IT Savvy all MS OSes will begin to annoy you in no time squared- You have unused icons on your desktop (when a user logins for the first time) -Cannot delete file in use (WHICH FILE!!) -Or my favourite, an error has occured- please contact your adminstrator (that would be me then!- may I see the error?) -the 'C' drive is shared by default for 'administrative purposes' - Excellent! -anyway it "looks like I'm trying to write a letter" like some kinda genius. enough, MS operating systems are designed for complete noobies from the servers on down, memory,process management security are an aftertought. It kills me the amount of time an effort that go into the 'help and support' programs that come with thier OS's. Windows 7 be sold to big business and moved on down the line to the great unwashed, dictating how users work with there PC's all the while. but so long as it looks shiney and stops the bad man what more could we hope for! now consider this thead closed! --thread closing REQUIRES ELEVATION -Sh1t
I agree the C:\ shouldn't be shared by default and Microsoft error messages for the most part don't give any or limited info as to what the actual problem is. BUT... If you use XP, Vista or Windows 7 in their default view, unless installed by an OEM, there aren't any icons on the desktop except the Recycle Bin. Also why would you want to delete a file while someone is using it. Microsoft products are designed not necessarily for noobs but for the masses and if you talk to many end users they like the pretty stuff. I don't agree with them but a lot of the things I personally turn off other users like. Believe it or not MS does listen to it's users, it's just that they here more from average Joe than they do from IT folks. Maybe its because there are more of them. By the way, in Windows 7 the UAC doesn't come up as often. I also leave mine on in both Vista and Windows 7 (Vista R2).
Seen this when setting up the beta on a VM the other day. First impression is much of the same although the install time was for less than Vista's. Need to check performance on a real box however.
I see that if microsoft didn't make Windows 7 looks different than windows vista, Then most people won't buy it saying "it's as gay as vista" ... i do really wonder .. couldn't microsoft used better graphics styles, with the new light technologies ... at least to change the Old microsoft Start Bar, why don't they make start button a circle that floats do you agree with me .. next to performence, better visual and graphics make more sales ?
OZ your a bit of an overbearing oaf but I agree with you in part. I build my own systems, have since 2000, what you guys need to know is that not all 1GB of ram is created equally, speeds of ram as well as single and dual channel ram play a huge part in how Windows or any OS reacts. Next to ram the single biggest problem in your vista experience is the video card. you buy a crappy dell laptop and your getting an intel pos shared memory video card. Which means your 1GB of ram is likely 64 to 128MB less because the video card automatically syphons that memory off the top. Same goes for cheap desktop computers with onboard video, shared ram means your system only gets 936MB or if the card is slightly better 872MB to use for programs. My old business series HP laptop with XP had 512 MB of ram, trying to run virtual machine on it was stupid. upgraded to 1GB and instantly it was a brand new computer. my new hp compaq laptop has 2GB of ram and an updated 128MB ATI video card still running XP because of software compatibility and my old system can't hold a candle to it. The other thing that manufacturers don't tell you and it pisses me off is what the system bus is. The speed at which your motherboards bus speed processes information directly effects how fast your computer will be. You buy a great video card, ram and processor but have a crap motherboard and you may as well go buy a dell. Another under looked component is the power supply. you don't buy a decent psu and your asking for problems. In my opinion with UAC disabled and 4GB of ram Vista is a great os. The 64 bit version with 4GB of ram can't be beat by XP. I'm able to run virtually every program I ran on xp on my vista system with a few exceptions. I just installed Windows 7 yesterday and wasn't too impressed initially that I couldn't get my creative x-fi soundcard to work, but changing the compatibility of the driver to vista solved the problem and I've been using it fine since. There few bugs for MS to work out but otherwise the UAC is less annoying even has a fancy slider bar to set what level of annoyance you want it to provide you with, much like a firewall program. The biggest problem that microsoft faces is that they have to build in backwards compatibility. That is their downfall. The vast majority of PC users love the poorly coded, crappy old programs. if you go to a mac there are only a dozen programs you can buy for your system, its not hard for apple to work with those dozen companies and change everything to work the way they want for a new release. when mac 10 came out it was based on unix unlike mac os 9. You just can't do that on windows, there would be a revolt. and OZ correction to your ME rant. ME was a half assed answer to 2k, a service pack for 98 providing a gui facelift with a poorly implemented system restore based entirely on windows 98 kernel. it wasn't until xp came along that they provided users with an answer along the business lines of the NT 4.0 kernel that 2k provided.
I too have a custom built machine with Vista and have never had a problem. My up time when I installed SP1 was 78 days. So far w7 looks very good on VM and I will be trying in multiboot this weekend. The only people I know who had issues with Vista who had actually used it tried to install it on old hardware that was not Vista Compliant.
Can anyone else see the resemblance of the taskbar with KDE's? It seriously looks like MS took the KDE taskbar, removed the desktop switcher and placed the windows startmenu in place of the cog wheel...
At first glance it does not appear to be something I would rush out and buy based on your screenshots. Maybe some improvements under the hood that aren't readily visible, but otherwise just appears to be another version of Vista. cmiller3021
It does operate just teh same as Vista, have been playing with it since early Beta's came out a few months back. There are fewer UAC nags, but even SP1 for Vista reduced that issue. It's basically Vista but seemingly more resourceful. With Vista getting better all teh time, it looks like 7 will just be a tweaked/rebrand to get the XP fanbois off their duffs and into action. "See I told you Vista was sh1t, Win7 is WAAAAY better!" Uh, sure.
whatever. Win2K was initially designed for business, when so many home users started using it instead of Win98, they sought out a new, stripped down system for home users (just as they do HOME versions today), WinME was WIn2K without anything useable in it. Network features trashed, security trashed, account management trashed, OS trashed. But call it what you will, of course you are always right in your own mind.
Don't bet on 7 being lightweight. Basically same kernel, and hardware requirements as Vista. Where does the lightweight come in?
Like the ability to turn off all of those unnecessary features? The ability to get rid of the stupid Fisher Price menus(which XP has too), the ablility to turn off the Areoglass interface, automatic indexing (a nice feature), the ability to shut off the nagging UAC prompts, the ability to Run a classic interface so it looks, runs and feels like Win2K? Yeah, it would be nice if they did that, or at least held people's hands and showed them that it can be done already.
What you are looking at ladies and gentlemen, is a rip off of any Linux distro that uses KDE. I doubt however, you will enjoy a similar level of performance. It's sort of ironic that the tortoise has overtaken the hare and that Microsoft with all its resources cannot produce something truly unique.
The first impression I had on seeing these screenshots: Welcome to Microsoft Linux 1.0. Windows: Looks like a Ferrari, drives like a tank.
The screen shots reminded me of KDE with a vista twist. I have vista business on my laptop and it is useless for developing websites because it refuses to connect to natted IP addresses. I have to go back to Windows XP to update external websites. I hope Windows 7 fixes the issues I have with vista.
With 100's of Linux distros isn't it kind of hard to release an OS that doesn't look like something out there already in the linux or apple or whatever communities? I haven't seen anyone other than Apple release anything remotely different than any other OS in some time. And I really hate to say that because I am so not an apple fan. After repairing countless iTunes libraries for friends I can honestly say there will be no i-whatever in my house.
So is this just a repackaged Vista with a new name? I think Microsoft shouldnt tought it so heavy. Poor consumers actually thought they were going to need Vista. What makes this any different? I bought Vista Ultimate just to have the next generation direct X 10. I should have waited longer until this comes out. Even then I bet XP is good for 5 more years. I mean you do not need new software if your business is doing just fine without it.
It has a lot of good presentation appeal. But I would rather have the entire windows appearance as attractive as a close-up of Fidel's beard after he ate a crumble cookie... if I good just get out of the usual window experience. Which is... lockup and die, restore, reboot, app failure, web search for solutions, patch, reboot, oops something else quit. Revert to an older restore point, loose all the program settings for the last week, re-install, work, ooops app terminating, send microsoft a message, get back a message from microsoft, driver problem, update, different apps stop working, restore to a known good starting point, re-install all the app's since then, work,... application is terminating, windows has detected a non recoverable error, restore... Windows downloads part of a service pack in the dead of night... oops system won't boot, do F8, restore to known good starting point... ie just after original install but before anything else installed. Phone MS support... we will help you for 49.95$ and promise to fix your problem, ... 3 days later... your problem needs the professional support line for $295 because you have a raid disk... we are refunding your $49.95 ... would you like to be transferred to professional support? How about some reliability and the novel concept of a working product. I have worked with dos since version 3 and every version of windows and NT since then and they are consistently the same. Marketing and no substance. If there were an alternative I would take it. In 15 years of working with VMS (DEC's OS) we never had one crash and that was in a real time many tiered system. Dave Cutler was the principle architect of VMS and went to Microsoft to do NT... something went really wrong somewhere.
I also ran a VMS shop for about 25 years. We had far more performance/mb/mhz then anything going today. Maybe not as much eye candy but far more real production work. Reboots? not more then 1/month tops. One machine ran 1 yr + beteen reboots. Crashes? Only disks crashed (disk technology has improved over the years) BTW - Even a disk crash would not necessarily bring down the system (mirrored disks, RAID, etc.) Solid technology does (or used to) exist.
Even though all of us like something new with the PC's its becoming quite clear that Windows is now supplying the technology that should have been here 5 years ago. So with the description thats given here, you have pretty much summed up Vista and most likely OS's to come. Its time that MS reevaluates what the market needs and not go on the looks of the OS.
It sounds like you are having hardware problems. The computer I am typing this on gets rebooted once a month or so. I am running Windows XP Pro on a Dell Optiplex 755. If you are having that many problems with EVERY version of Windows, then I would look at changing out the hardware. Or you are running Windows Millennium. Now that OS had the problems you mentioned. Anyway, regarding the screen shots. Windows 7 looks like MS Office 2007! Yuck!!!
Nothing new under the SUN here, you know what this looks like to me? , a restaurant that didnt sell the dish yesterday, and today they reheat it throw a few cucombers around and call it fresh. I am very disappointed, but then again it's MS, XP was fine. the rest I can flush them all down the toilet.! my 2cents
what would I do to make my PC better? Now THAT would be a good discussion. NOTE: I am much happier with my KDE machines in terms of configuring my user experince than my XP machine. Vista and 7 seem be just now be getting somewhere near it. But the ability to create panels and populate them and change all the click and window behavior.... hard to beat.
As the article said, it looks similar to Vista. I looked at the screen shots and there doesn't appear to be anything radically different. Have to see if it runs any differently.
yeah we didnt benchmark VISTA and jusk ask around and read some forums and review. But thats not the point!! Its true that there is no "One Size for All" In business world if your application (either its legacy or window base apps you develop in-house) we have to consider this apps before we change OS. The big proglem is if we need to buy new PC with OEM Vista with it, and it turns out that it will give you "inconveiences" might as well use the much older OS.
I agree, there is no "One Size for All" that is exactly why you should do your own research and take forums, reviews and 'asking around' with a grain of salt. I have been running Vista since beta with limited problems. These problems were only in the beginning.Since then everything is fine. My 2 teenagers and spouse are running Vista on Dell laptops which are 2 and 3 years old. I only increased the memory from 1 to 2 gig and they have not encountered any problems with speed or compatibilities. After testing Vista and Office 2007 at work the company is moving ahead with deployment. We have worked out the few bugs with some of the software we use. We have offices in 8 countries and another 8 offices in the US. Now about Windows 7; the name is really misleading and probably a amrketing ploy but it is nothing more than Vista R2. Just like MS released Server2008 R2. So of course it will be "better than Vista was when it first came out". It is not a new OS. I also like Win7. They have trimmed down some of the apps that came with Vista and I definitely see a decrease in memory usage over Vista. I am very comfortable with Vista, Office 2007 and Windows 7. Come on, you're supposed to be the tech folks, stop whining like end users.
IT HAS STICKY NOTES! IT HAS A CALCULATOR! THEY MOVED THE BACK BUTTON TO THE BOTTOM! YOU CAN STILL USE SEARCH! THEY MADE PAINT LOOK EVEN MORE SPARSE! THE RECYCLE BIN IS TRANSPARENT! IT DISPLAYS BASIC FILE STRUCTURE! IT STILL HAS GAMES, BUT EVEN COOLER ONES! IT STILL HAS A CONTROL PANEL! IT HAS A CALENDAR! IT HAS IE 8! YOU CAN VIEW BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR COMPUTER! YOU CAN GIVE MICROSOFT F-E-E-D-B-A-C-K !!!
Do Microsoft think everyone owns a 36" monitor at 3840 X 2400 resolution? I don't care how good it looks. If I jump in and find out it will turn my Ferrai PC into a Deux Cheveaux, I'll never come back. Hey, it looks and acts so much like a Mac...I think I'll go buy a Mac! How about that?
If ou were to buy a MAC we wouldn't hear this unqualified BS from you anymore. Niiice, shall we start up a collection for you?
i already did...bought Mac last month. Feels a lots easier and better. If u feels the enviroment just like Macs, just go for Macs. Why must have other OS enviroment in Windows?
Wondiws Vista does NOT suck anymore than XP id when released, in fact far less than XP did. Perhaps in YOUR instance, in YOUR connfiguration with YOUR cuild, Vista did not perform, but the security features alone make it NOT suck. The simpler navigation dances circles around anything XP could ever hope for and, as we have seen proven here, it is NOT slower than XP for teh most part in and many cases is actually faster. You should try Win7 out though, it IS pretty fast and stable, I like teh way it is able to actually find drivers (not just pretend its looking, but it actually goes online and FINDS drivers). Win7 But as with ANY release MS has EVER release, it will have major issues out of the gate and Vista will be patched to help all 'the other people' get used to it. The UAC doesn't nag like Vista, but then again, that's an issue that SP1 has already rectified with Vista too. One thing about people with computers, they are as easily lead by hype as most folks are to the lies and deceit of politics. Say it enough times and people will believe it, in fact the more absurd it is, the easier it is to sell to others. I have read SO many false claims about Vista and they are all pretty much based on the same, lies and BS that simply don't hold water. Vista is more secure than XP, is just as stable, runs processes just as fast, has FAR BETTER processor management (XP dosn't even know what a dual core processor is, yet alone able to optimize it), faster searches, better memory and disk management, better/faster navugation etc. There are a LOT of advantages to Vista, enough so that you don't actually jave to listen to the XP fanbois winging like little girls who spilled ice cream on their new pink summer dresses. Win7 is just a Vista clone, except seemingly better resource management, even though I didn't load all of my software into Win7 to really give it a run for its money, I'm not THAT brave.
I am a teacher at a Bible College here in Tacoma and we had a class where all the students got Dell Laptops with 1gig-o-ram. It was the longest class EVER! Every click required the class wait and wait. True, not a benchmark testing suite, but it was a real world experience of 20+ students and 2 instructors (we have XP and never once waited for Our machines). Sorry, but on that alone, I would define that as suck. PS If they were just "real" about it and told everyone you had to have 2gigs or more, nobody would be whining right now :-)
I think Dell, Compaq or HP, Gateway and all the rest deliberately build under powered computers so the consumer will pay more for upgrades. In other words they are betting on the consumer being to dumb to find ram upgrades and calls them to buy it at an inflated price. Personally I hate them all and build my own as far as Vista goes I haven't had any problems with it both at home and at work. I do not like the problems of not being able to burn copy writed cds' and dvds' at least I heard that this is a problem. I also think that Microsoft wouldn't have as many piracy problems if the product was cheaper to buy.
Ha-ha. 1 GB RAM, you ran Vista on 1 GB RAM and you complaining about it!! Com'n dude, it's all over the web world that what're the minimum hardware requirements for Vista. And you trusted Dell? They will tell you anything to sell their machines and from my experience their Sales men are not qualified techs so, it'd be a foolishness to trust them.
Last I checked RAM is ridiculously cheap. A quick Google search gives me 4 gigs (2x2 pc 6400) for a whopping $35. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1682020835
And there I was trying to explain it and it took me about 5 paragraphs and a few deleted religious slurs.
They only fit vista's minimum requirements. Any IT person should know that "minimum" requirements are never good enough. Throw Xp on a laptop with Microsoft's recommended minimum of 128 mb (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sysreqs/pro.mspx) and see how bad that sucks! You can't say the os sucks because you have hardware that is under powered and running at minimum spec.
The fact that DELL builds garbage machines without standardization, so that what works on one may not work on an identical machine? 1GB RAm is the absolute minimum needed to run the core Vista system (as clearly defined by MS on their website) with no features and eye candy, I am confident that all of that was still running while you were having these problems, unless you are in that 0.001% percentile of users that tweak an OS when it is installed and trim it down to suit the hardware abilities. Or are you referring to the extensive benchmarks that TK did for TR a while back, proving that Vista is just as fast as, and often faster than, XP with several builds? Or are you referring to the fact that Vista utilizes proper process management for multicore processors that wasn't even considered with XP? Or perhaps its the use of breadcrumbs navigation that is a much faster and more efficient way of navigating through Explorer windows. Why would MS tell you you only need 1GB of RAM? Did you read the part when it states how that will operate the basic core functions of Windows Vista and not recommended for features such as Aeroglass, animated menus, the gadget sidebar etc? In your case and your unqualified conclusion, you ran underpowered machines. I can almost promise you that you did not tweak or optimize the system, as is standard with XP and you were running cheap, retail machines that you bought due to the low price. That is in no way whatsoever a way to evaluate a new OS, not even close. From MS website: "Actual requirements and product functionality may vary based on your system configuration. Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor can help you determine which features and edition of Windows Vista will run on your computer." [i]"If they were just "real" about it and told everyone you had to have 2gigs or more, nobody would be whining right now"[/i] Nope, people whine about any new MS product and have done wince Win3.11 was replaced with Win95. It was the same bitch fest with XP; too bloated, needs a hardware upgrade, waste of money, not secure (especially when replacing Win2K), full of bugs (had the most updates and patches of ANY MS product ever released) etc. For sure, your machines were not designed to run vista properly, were underpowered (even 1GB RAM means nothing if the RAM's clock speed is slow, common with DELL for using old, cheap hardware, poorly written BIOS etc.). They keep their price down by offering cheap garbage. DELL sucks, that's a fact, Vista, when installed on the right machine runs like a top. If you don't like benchmarks, the more accurate way to compare software with identical machines compared to simply running a bunch of cheap boxes with improperly configured operating systems, that's your choice but it certainly isn't fact or qualified opinion. My question for you is, if you are running XP notebooks and they run fine with only 1GB RAM, why did you upgrade them to Vista and expect it to operate the same when only the minimum amount of RAM for basic functionality? Did you not check the MS website for compatibility? Were your XP notebooks from DELL, Vista ready? Or did you just decide to take an old notebook designed for XP and decide it was Vista ready, expecting the rabbit to jump out of the hat? If so, you'll be waiting just as long for that to happen as you will for Christ to be resurrected. Tip: Ain't gonna happen.
Vista is a SNAIL! I consider windows Vista a repeat of windows ME. Almost everybody I know in the tech community really doesn't like Vista. It's really bad how certain notebook makers force Vista down your throat. XP after "maturing" became just nice to me in terms of performance to hardware ratio. I've read somewhere that MS "learned it's lesson" making a hardware intensive pretty OS that nobody really liked so they've built the OS with less flash but better performance.Thus I'm hopeful when I read at some sites that windows 7 beta can run on a P4 with 512MB RAM relatively smoothly. Sounds like kindof a stretch but let's remain optimistic.
But speaking for myself and a lot of other people, I don't care to work with just a plain jane os. I like vista aero. I like the mac interface. I like a lot of the linux gui's that have eye candy. I hated back in the day when all my parents could afford was a green monochrome crt. I still remember playing police quest and turning on my sirens at every intersection because I couldn't tell what color the stop light was. I have no desire to go back to that...
"Almost evdrybody i know in the tech community really doesn't like Vista" So? They buy into the BS too? Why would someone, with fair pay and an easy workload, advocate more work? Why test, train and rollout Vista when it is easier to simply deny its value and then retain your complacency and ease of work? We had a very good benchmark test done here: http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-7343-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=280962&messageID=2659904 You will soon find that Vista faired better in many cases than XP and XP only wins out on a few draw issues. As for memory management, resource allocation and multicore processors, XP doesn't even touch on Vista capablilities. A repeat of ME??? Give our head a shake and learn to talk abotu what you know, not what others have been parroting like good little XP fanbois.
Fact is, they needed to push up the speed of the pcs running in the world, they don't have the luxury of building the systems like apple do, to do this they created vista, Heavy granted, but out of it I now have a Quad core 2.66ghz processor and 4gb of ram, I'm not complaining, and when 7 does come out its gonna fly, also, on this matter of vista running slow, thats not the case, if you tweak the install after the initial setup you can make it run quite quick, and thats not just on my pc, kick it down to aero basic, knock up the page file, turn off UAC, select only the services you want, I have installed vista in diffferent incarnations various times and every time its run ok, the one exception being a PC world advent machine, but that was destined to be rubbish (2 USB ports!), I just think MS have to do something to push the hardware, this is all they really can do.
Good point. I was one of the few that never had a problem with NT 4.0. Just turned out right. Have you wondered yet, "Why are Microsoft coming out with W7 so fast and dumping Vista?" Has to be some reason and it is similar to Windows ME. Good luck.
I have had several machines with Vista Business & Home Premium on them. Even machines dual booting XP & Vista. A couple of them were preloaded from the factory and some were loaded on them by me. I have tested them on various manufacturers, including HP & Gateway, even built by me. I have found all of those machines to work very well with Vista on them. I have run the business ones even on networks with server 2003 (Very smooth!). I have run them independently (Not on a network)I have assisted users who have no IT experience. I have used it on tablet PC's, laptops, PC's. I have had very few problems. I definitely like eye candy (That's just preference) & Vista looks much better than previous OS's. I have heard many countless things online and even from other IT people about Vista. Many of those things are 100% incorrect. I have talked with other IT folks who love Vista & would not go back. I consider myself someone with a lot of "Real World" experience, whether it's on a business network or simple home use. Besides myself, I speak with other users also. I have heard very few complaints about Vista. I liked XP & even was impressed with 2000 during "It's Hey Day". Sure, the older OS's require less hardware upgrades. Sure Linux many times can run on lesser hardware. But newer hardware, if properly used/optimized will outperform older hardware! And a newer OS will know how to utilitze the newer hardware. Even Linux can do more with newer hardware. I don't totally get using a 10 year old computer & trying to run a much newer OS on it? 10 years maybe an exageration (To many years or to few) & I find that is mentioned more in the Linux world, but some people believe that to be something reasonable in the Windows world also. I do agree that newer OS's should be able to work with something that is a couple years older. I will note I haven't used Win 7 yet, but from the screenshots it nearly looks like Vista with a Linux panel for a taskbar. I can't speak for 7 yet, because I don't have any real world experience yet, but what I would mostly look for is general performance to kinda test what's under the hood. Eye-candy is important, but how well it performs & how easy it is to navigate to various tasks is more important. I use XP & Vista regularly ...and I dabble a little with Linux. One thing that rings very true for myself & others experience: Many times it's a matter of your needs. If XP provides what you need (& what you want) don't switch. Expect with a new machine you will get the newest OS & hardware. There is a lot of personal preference here. What works for one person, may not for another. There was a lot of complaint when XP came out, but now many fell in love with it. I'm one of the few here that have expressed a wonderful experience with Vista in many tests & know many other IT/Non-IT people who have had great experiences also. Like I mentioned before, there is a LOT said out there is no validity whatsoever for it. Much hearsay & to be quite honest what appears to be propaganda for competition. That's how (Big) business works! I will in no way say that I've never had any problem with XP, Vista, or Linux. I've had crashes with all of them.
I have it testing on a few GIS boxes. It runs fine there, too. Nothing fancy, average amd dual core box and a moderate graphics card. The system runs resource intensive but it remains responsive.
FWIW, I'm one of those "laptop victims". someone mentioned, and to be quite honest slow has never been part of my experience. I've got two Vista laptops and my experience thus far suggests that "Vista = slow" may qualify as an urban legend. It boots and shuts down faster, connects to the network faster, and generally compares quite favorably with anything I've used. I'm running 64-bit Vista on a 2.0Ghz Turion X64 with 4GB of memory. Most of the apps I use are 32-bit, which means they run in the Win32 emulator, and they are plenty fast. Photoshop and Paintshop Pro Photo load and make computationally intensive changes to large images as quickly as I've experienced on any desktop running XP, and in many cases my "hobbled" laptop seems faster. maybe I'm just imagining it, huh...hypnotized by the pretty aero desktop?
I read that it was one computer, right? And it is not MY experience. I do have the right to my own opinion and it is formed by examining dozens of situations and a broad range of experiences. So if Vista works so well for you, why is the rest of the community having SO much trouble? YOU-ARE-LUCKY! That's all. You happen to have the /right/ hardware. Just because one person makes it through a mine field doesn't make it safe for everyone else to start running.
All you are proving is that there are a few systems out there that Vista works well on but not the majority. If you're into gaming, fine but the business world has serious needs and loading a bloated, memory, hardware pig is not one of them. All I am concerned about is that for the most part of all the people I have talked to about their experience with it, taken with my own indicates Vista is the result of a big fat lazy company that has gotten greedy. Microsoft need to take it in the pants, forget the share holders immediate reaction to loss and spend a bunch of money to actually improve their biggest seller. Rather than slap on a new coat of paint add a couple bells and whistles and say, "here ya go!" That is Vista and so far W7, until there is a general consensus otherwise. They would have taken a small dip for the money spent but gained oh so much more in sales than they have with Vista and will get from W7 together. I like Microsoft's products until Vista and Office 07. However, I, like many in the community, don't have time to weather the learning curve BACK to the current level of productivity I have with their older less radical departure tools like Office 03. If it is even possible to get back to. When they add one or two more clicks or keystrokes to every day activity (no, every few seconds activity to put it correctly) then those people will have a major problem with it. I am just worried about Microsoft. That they are pulling the same dumb mistakes that Novell made in the late 90s. Making the OS so much more difficult to load and use that it forces long time users to look else where and there ARE alternatives now.
What did you test it on? Not our experience.Tried Vista on at least 10 different machines. And cool down a little. Try listening a little. Others do have valid points to make.
The biggest slowdown is loading tasks. Vista is not pretty, to 'thin' and hollow. Give me windows classic anyday.
I must say I am fully agreed with you. W7 is bit too quickly released so to me it more seems like SP for Vista - trying to fix the loop holes they left in Vista. I know few organizations who are waiting for W7 to release and will migrate straight to that instead of Vista and know very few organizations who have actually have stopped rolling out Vista (YES, they decided to go ahead then changed their mind)and awaiting for W7. No doubt in Vista things are more visible and attractive but for pro users I guess choice will be XP for a while.
If you head read properly, the computer was teh SAME computer used for all tests. It wasn't a MARKETING tactic as you suggest, it was a private test benchmarke dby one of our peers here at TR. That IS experience, plus the fact that I also use and have used Vista now for a good year, without the BS issues that I keep reading about. What you obviously didn't learn in college was reading comprehension. Your entire post is based on false understanding and not reality. Your 'speculations' towards Win7 are just that, unqualified opinions and speculations, or more accurately, a rather simple guess. You mention they are fixing the worst instabilties, which instabilities are you speaking of specifically. I have found none in my first hand experience myself, perhaps your guessing and speculation can explain it better than hand on knowledge.
I loaded Xp, XP x64, Vista Business 32 and Vista Business x64 on my newest gaming rig to see which was the most responsive. All on the exact same box, with a fresh format install for each os. Vista Business x64 won all the benchmarks and it felt faster to be honest. Blistering faster than Xp? Not exactly and my FPS in games jumped by 5-15 fps which is negligible at best. But it did outperform the others. Now on a machine with a single core processor and/or less than 2 gigs of RAM I will agree, Xp is faster. Vista doesn't shine until you throw 4 gigs or more at it.
Two similar computers, heck the same computer and Vista runs 40% slower than XP. That is the experience most people get. Marketing benchmarks get people interested, experience teaches the lesson. (I learned in college you can make statistics say anything you want.) This W7 is a little TOO quick to arrive on the heals of V(ME). Tells me all they did was drop some of the power hungry "for your own good" crap and fix the worst instabilities.