Windows

Windows Vista killer features

Adding keyword tags in Windows Photo Gallery

If you read reviews of Windows Vista in the mainstream media, the criticism you'll find most often is that there's no killer feature. Oh really? These three features - XMP-based photo tagging, integrated search, and speech recognition - certainly qualify. Read Ed Bott's original blog post, Windows Vista's Three Killer Features.

You can add keywords, captions, and ratings to any JPEG or TIFF photo using the Info pane in Windows Vista's Photo Gallery program. Tags are stored as metadata within the file itself using the industry-standard XMP format. As a result, you can copy or move photos without having to export your metadata.

14 comments
parker.cn
parker.cn

See, just a bunch of typical whiny computer users. Get over it, guys. Have you even installed Vista yet? So, I mean, without actual first-hand experience, you... really have no way of knowing if any of the negative hype is true. I do have Vista installed, Aero desktop and everything. It's not the resource hog everyone said it was going to be. And I may have a pretty good computer, but it's not a monster or anything. Just one video card, a gig of RAM, an older 2.6 P4 processor. And it runs *fine*. Give it a try before you jump on the "We hate Microsoft" bandwagon and look like everyone else on the Internet.

yagar
yagar

Must be you have a shining light that beams down upon you. I, as well as many others have tried VISTA. It's does not even run close to XP. Perhaps running *fine* for you is quite unacceptable to others. Some folks simply don't want to pay out the $$ to have something that doesn't give them the performance of what they already have. Read the article here http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1845/ . It's only one of the many that have been published with performance analysis of VISTA. I have yet to read on any creditable testing site anything that reveals that VISTA is close to the performance of XP. Will VISTA someday perform up to acceptable levels, maybe. Time is the only thing that will answer that question. It hasn't been so long ago that M$ shoved ME down the public throats. Without some serious tweaking ME would not run reliably. ME was a huge dose of MS bad medicine. Some tout VISTA as worse than ME. ME didn't taste good, the initial flavors of VISTA don't taste good either.

parker.cn
parker.cn

No need to get all up in arms, my friend. That goes for everyone else who arbitrarily decided to take offense at my post. My experience has not been as poor as everyone else's. To be honest, my personal computer has always been a bug and error magnet. I believe I am entitled to a little bit of excitement at the prospect of a (so far, knock on wood) problem free environment. And I wasn't necessarily discounting anyone's poor experience with the product. But the vast, and I mean *vast* majority of maliferous comments have come from folks who just heard from other folks that Vista is slow and sucky. And, of course, there is the general tendency to malign every new product Microsoft comes out with. It's sort of a bad, running joke in the IT industry, symbolized by the ubiquitous "M$" sign I see so often. Forgive me, I guess, for my hubris.

parker.cn
parker.cn

My eye don't hurt. ;) But to that, I would agree with you. In that, I mean it's odd that a company with so many resources and so much money can spend so freaking long iterating what might be considered a success ten or fifteen years ago. I'm with you on that. I'd switch to Linux, but I'm a gamer. I'd switch to Macs, but I hate Macs... and I'm a gamer.

yagar
yagar

I'm not really up in arms at you as much as I am at MS. I feel like they have a lot of nerve releasing VISTA when they knew of it's limitations. They put out false information, as referenced in the link in my previous post, then try to hide their short comings. It irks me that MS could develop a rock solid OS if they didn't spend so much time on cosmetics. The OS does not have to do everything, let software do it on an as needed basis. Give us a platform to build with, one that is secure and compatible. Imagine all the man hours put into developing VISTA's unneeded baggage, put it into the real OS, what would you have then? Anyway, I'm ranting on. Didn't mean to poke a finger in your eye Cheers

kattoon
kattoon

While it has it's problems (just as XP did when it came out), it's not as bad as all the nay-sayer hype. If you only tried vista before the RC1 version, you missed out on some of the performance fixes that make vista run better. I guess we should all go back to manual typewriters and dictaphones. They were easier and they didn't have viruses and performance problems...Just need to stock up on Liquid Paper though...

Endoscopy
Endoscopy

I started out with computers about 30 years ago. One thing I have noticed in that time is: The speed, memory, and disk space have increased. The mainline OS grows to more than make up for it. The programmers seem to think these improvements were put there for them to take. My PDP-11 running RT would boot in seconds. Vista just follows the trend.

lastchip
lastchip

And my comments above stand! Interestingly, if you really want improved performance, try Win 98se on a modern machine. Yes, I know there's all sorts of issues that may make it impractical, but for Microsoft to say Vista has an improved performance is nonsense. Like CHaynes, I tried Vista (64 Bit) and was very disappointed. When I compared it to SuSE and Kubuntu, it became obvious Microsoft still cannot produce a 64 bit operating system. In real terms for home users, it offers no significant improvements over XP. I know many will refer to improved security, but that comes at a cost of reduced operability for the user, particularly with premium content and the built DRM technology. Even XP reasonably protected, is not as insecure as everyone makes out. With a decent Firewall, Anti-virus and Malware protection, XP's a reasonable system. Already, the cracks are showing in Microsoft's built in offering in Vista, having failed miserably Virus Bulletins recent tests. As far as the eye candy is concerned, that too comes at a cost of an increased overhead (as compared to XP). The cost in the UK is just too silly for words and so becomes a non-starter as an upgrade. It's not a question of hating Microsoft. In many respects, Bill Gates and his merry men have done more for personal computing than anyone else on earth, but they have (IMHO) now lost the plot. Instead of being satisfied with creating a good stable and secure operating system, they want it to be everything to everyone and it 'aint going to happen. In my opinion, they would be far better to separate out all the "extras" and sell a stand alone operating system. By all means market and sell all the extras, but as separate entities. This would achieve a couple of things. It would get rid of all the anticompetitive practices law suites and would allow people to decide for themselves which (extra) software they would prefer. We would then find out whether Microsoft's extras were as good as the oppositions. I hope you can now see, my post was a considered reply and not a hate Microsoft rant!

CHaynes
CHaynes

Yes I have tried VISTA via the beta programme (up to RC1) and wasn't that impressed. It certainly isn't worth the cost of upgrading to me. As far as I can tell there is a lot of eye candy which does slow the system down (benchmark testing has shown that Vista is slower than XP which was slower than 2000 ....). People have said that the graphics is accelerated in hardware and so don't impact on performance - fair enough if you are using a word processor but if you are doing video rendering etc. it will have a big impact - GPUs have limited cycles to play with just as CPUs. It's funny how every release is described as improving performance when all benchmarking in recent years has shown that successive generations of all OSes seem to be getting more and more bloated and as a result slower. A previous comment that "this is an OS - a means to an end" is spot on - all the manufacturers seem to have forgotten this - if I want applications to catalogue photos etc. I will install something like ACDsee which does a heck of a lot more - and probably more efficiently. MS just keep adding toys to the OS (like Windows MovieMaker which was a pointless waste of disc space) and every time they do they push other companies out of the market and then end up in court with anti-trust cases. When will the next batch of AT cases arise? It is interesting that in the EU MS has responded to the anti-trust cases by releasing a version 'without Windows Media Player' - but guess what ... it is MORE expensive than the version with. Also in the EU there is a huge price hike on US prices - basically no one in MS is bright enough to do currency conversion so in the UK there is a pounds for dollars price match which means Vista costs twice as much in the UK. If I had the option to use Linux I would - though I don't really find Linux a panacea as it so hard to get lots of hardware to work properly and it is difficult to find professional quality equivalents of a lot of graphics/video/audio software available to Windows and Mac users (plus the expense of dumping expensive software to look at inferior alternative under Linux).

duarte.rafa
duarte.rafa

I've had vista installed in a brand new laptop, some time later it failed and I tried to use the auto recovery function and it didn't work. What did I do? I removed vista and installed xp on it, now it works like an F-18, fast and efficient.

lastchip
lastchip

There is nothing "killer" at all about Vista. Already, Microsoft are touting the replacement to Visa (Vienna) due in about two years. You must all be mugs, jumping on the Microsoft gravy train, paying silly money for minor improvements to XP. And there you'll all be again in two years time, dipping your hands in your pockets paying out yet again. It's an operating system; a means to an end; nothing more, nothing less! Edited for typo.

CHaynes
CHaynes

All of these features (and a lot more) can be added at a fraction of the cost with better 3rd party products. This is just another example of MS trying to elbow out other software companies and doubtless there will be more anti-trust cases as a result. No one has convinced me there are any killer features in Vista at all - it just looks like another example of eye candy mania to me - and all the eye candy are ultimately at huge costs to system performance and aren't even available unless you have graphics cards with large amounts of memory. Most systems that will have suitable graphics cards will be owned by game players who won't want the system overhead of Aero to intefere with game playing - most office machines won't even have access to the eye candy!

davmax
davmax

The plain daft comments make a lot of sense. However perhaps all the features that Apple wrap up in their OSX are very similar and perhaps the same could be said. Yes typically there has been more third party choices for Windows users. MS besides creating a product that they feel they can sell I guess they would not look very effective if they did not produce an OS that is equal or better in capability to OSX. They must create a living. Is it being suggested that we stick with Windows XP or Linux? (Both have their application).

joseph.leung
joseph.leung

IBM OS/2 Warp 4.0, a ten-year ago product, already had Speech Recognition. How can it be a killer feature. U killed me.