Vista feedback

[Doug Nelson]

Anyone trying out Vista yet? Any problems? Is it still free? For how long? Can you dual-boot with XP? Is it easy? Other comments?

[Frank Lopes]

I am running full time Vista Ultra RC2 since it came out. A few weeks. Prior to RC2, I ran several flavors of Beta in "part time" mode: not in my primary system. And yes, RC2 is free. I don't believe MS charges for the software. Only charges to have it mailed to you.
Regarding installation in a system with XP while retaining dual boot: I don't run it in that mode, but I don't see being an issue if you have multiple partitions. I elected to wipe clean my HD and install it fresh.

There are 2 ways to look at Vista: how it looks and how it does what it does.

How it looks

It is visually stunning running in it is full resolution glory. It requires 32 bit color and a quite robust video card. If you are able to meet the criteria, you will truly appreciate how good it looks. The "glass" look is, at least for me, very nicely done. If the system is not robust enough to support the graphical experience at its top resolution, it will run at one of 2 other lower resolution modes: XP look and feel, or the classic windows interface.
Overall, big thumbs up from me.

How it works

Things become much more complicated commenting on this. MS, it is obvious, is trying to publish an OS that is fast, secure and user friendly.
They have succeeded in certain areas but not in others. It is the old joke in software development: you can have only have 2 out the magical three: cheap, fast and bug free. You can pick any two but never three.
There many areas in Vista that users will complain...This is specially true for moderate, technically savvy users. Entry level users, will be well served by following the wizards that MS provides. Advanced users, will never be lost, so it is not an issue. It is the "middle of the road" users: the ones that already knew their way around XP, but not necessarily why things happened the way they did, that will feel lost:

Folder structures has changed significantly

The control panel is very different

If you are used to manually configuring the network settings, good luck navigating the network wizard

Many actions now provide, sometimes ominous, warnings regarding the appropriateness of one's actions

Overall, it will take, just like it did with XP, some time getting used to. I'm still looking for things. It is like moving to new house: you move all the boxes but it takes you a year to find the contents in all the boxes.

Software backwards compatibility

This is strictly based on my experiences and it could be due to the way I tend to install and run applications. So please take this with a grain of salt...

I have several issues regarding backwards compatibility. None of them critical, but all alarming. I have managed to solve all issues but it is still disturbing. Some of the instances of things not running properly, are from software truly obscure that would be a challenge to run on any OS. But here goes some well known packages:

ACDsee Photomanager Pro
When you try to launch it, there is a warning that says, and I'm grossly paraphrasing here, "This software is not compatible with Vista". Even gives you the manufacturer's name, address, phone and URL so you can contact them and ask for an update. This tells me MS tested the software and found that, in the users' best interest, they should not run it. I have a trial copy and got it to run without (knock on wood...) incident.

ACDsee Photomanager 9.0
It launches with the same message as the Pro instance, but nothing works inside: can't see thumbnails, will not display a preview, the help doesn't launch etc etc.
I'm sure as soon as Vista is officially released, ACDsee will come out with updates.

Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator
In both cases, and after certain user actions (not the kind that you are thinking about: just regular use), some of the settings disappear. I don't have a better explanation for when it happens, but once in a while, my saved workspace fails to load. If I load it manually, all is well. Could be unrelated to Vista, but I never had that problem with XP.

Virus scan packages
With very few exceptions, the vast majority doesn't work. MS knew this and it provides, from within Vista links to its web site where they, from time to time, slowly certify vendors. The best known packages from MacFee, Symantec, etc., will not even install. The reason for this, is due to the fact that virus scan requires special access to the inner workings of windows and MS is very reluctant to provide the technical details on how to do it. As of now there are only 3 that have been "blessed" by the MS wizards.

Other packages
I tried to run several homegrown packages that ran fine in XP, but only moderate success in Vista. I found that software that was written strictly following MS best practices runs without a problem. Software that was written with folder structures hard coded within the source code ( a big no no... ) will not run since some of the critical folder structures within the OS have changed.

Hardware compatibility
Hardware purchased within the last 18 to 24 months will run without a problem. However I found 2 cases that surprised me:

Adaptec AHA-2940 SCSI Controller
This is an old card that was very common in higher end systems. I was very surprised that, for the sake of stability, MS elected not to support it. Adaptec card support was always a given. This means that my old trusted scanner was no more.

Microsoft Fingerprint Reader
I find it absurd that MS would elect to not certify (or even allow the installation) of one of its own pieces of hardware. That is right people: when you try to install it, it "barks" at you that it is only for XP. So the lesson here is: even still recent XP compatible hardware should run, it is not always the case.

On the plus side, MS has published a tool called Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvist...r/default.mspx) that does a very good job of painting a picture of the compatibility issues that you will face with your hardware (and software...). Even if you don't plan to install Vista in the foreseeable future, download and install the tool. It will be a learning experience.

I'll post other observations as I gain more experience.

Originally Posted by Doug Nelson

Anyone trying out Vista yet? Any problems? Is it still free? For how long? Can you dual-boot with XP? Is it easy? Other comments?

[Gary Richardson]

You forgot to add the system requirements Frank. Vista will not run well on those with a less than top end system spec.

All this for a nice interface, who needs it?

Security, the very thing that M$ is trying to sell it on is not all it could be. Many AV programs do not work on Vista, and the malware writers have already found ways to exploit it.

What will in effect happen is that the bad guys will still know how to get junk onto your computer, but the very systems used to defend you will be the ones preventing you from removing it.

I'll certainly only be installing it once my current box "burns out", and I don't have any option because it will then be the default OS on any new purchase.

[NancyJ]

I'm hoping for photoshop and gaming on linux before I have to resort to vista. 3d interface?! yay, now I can lose track of my windows in a whole new dimension

[Doug Nelson]

Here's an off-the-wall question: if you use a screencap app such as Hypersnap to capture just the application window, does the desktop (or whatever is underneith) show through the transparent bits, or does it snap to opaque for the screencap?

I'm downloading RC1 now, is this the latest public release? I assume it is, since the xfer is via MS Vista site. Any word on RC2 public date? I see RC2 mentioned, is this for developers only?

[Frank Lopes]

Instead of trying to explain, here is an example of a partial screen shot where a folder is on top of Firefox 2.0. It is clear the transparency effect.
RC2 was released to developers via MSDN weeks ago. So, I guess for now, the best you can do is try RC1.

Originally Posted by Doug Nelson

Here's an off-the-wall question: if you use a screencap app such as Hypersnap to capture just the application window, does the desktop (or whatever is underneith) show through the transparent bits, or does it snap to opaque for the screencap?

I'm downloading RC1 now, is this the latest public release? I assume it is, since the xfer is via MS Vista site. Any word on RC2 public date? I see RC2 mentioned, is this for developers only?

[chrishoggy]

I was initially impressed and was expecting something great, but looking good seems to have taken priority at MS
The visualizations can be done in XP, and the transparent window feature is something I've had for ages with Nvidia software/drivers. As Vista is (and will be) hacked just as much as XP (if not more), I wont be buying it at the end of this month, or in Jan 07 when it goes public final release. I will give it a good 1-2 years, so it's stable and compatible with the software and hardware market .

[Gary Richardson]

Originally Posted by chrishoggy

I will give it a good 1-2 years, so it's stable and compatible with the software and hardware market

Good advice from chris, remember XP only really got stable after SP2 was released.

[chrishoggy]

remember XP only really got stable after SP2

And even then it messed up many 1000's of systems XP SP3 is in the making, but may not actually be released as a service pack. MS has said it may be 2008 before they think of doing SP3.

[Gary Richardson]

MS has said it may be 2008 before they think of doing SP3.

Great timing as usual M$. Glad they want to keep their existing customers happy. (Sorry couldn't find an Ironic smiley).

[Doug Nelson]

In a dual-boot situation with apps that have proven to work with Vista, do they need to be installed via Vista, or will apps installed via XP launch OK when booted in Vista?

[chrishoggy]

They will need to be installed in Vista, as dual booting is the same as running a second PC (in theory).

PS: For those who really must have Vista, Buy XP Pro OEM and get a free Windows Vista Business Edition upgrade on the link below
http://www.aria.co.uk/ProductsList.a...&SubCat=SOF-OS

[Frank Lopes]

You should read carefully how MS words this... but in essence...

If you are upgrading your OS, you should not have to reinstall...
If you are replacing the OS, the answer is yes...

A dual boot environment is, as Chris mentioned, the same as 2 different pcs... so you will have to reinstall. Remember that one install is, in theory, oblivious of the presence of the other...

Originally Posted by Doug Nelson

In a dual-boot situation with apps that have proven to work with Vista, do they need to be installed via Vista, or will apps installed via XP launch OK when booted in Vista?

[chrishoggy]

In RC1 public, I believe the upgrade option is disabled and only clean install works. It will rename your XP installation as .old and do a fresh install. Personally I would do a dual boot using a second HDD, rather than a second partition on your main HDD .
I run it on a test box, as it just isn't worth the risk of running it on my main system .

[plugsnpixels]

Tri- or quad-boot, my friends!

I installed Vista RC1 (missed the window for RC2) on an iMac (20", 2 GHz, 2 gigs RAM) using Parallels, and it runs great. I had already installed an XP virtual machine, so installing Vista was as simple as creating a new VM and installing from the DVD I wrote.

Once complete, I was able to simply copy the Parallels Vista subfolder to a MacBook and have Vista on it as well, with no reinstall needed.

IMO Vista is XP with an OS-X skin. Definitely less ugly than XP or 98, etc. Dig the Gadgets (aka Apple Widgets). As a Mac user I could stand to look at Vista all day if need be (unlike XP's anemic system font and Soviet-era [or Fisher-Price] GUI). BTW, can XP's default system font be changed to something more solid?.

I installed ACD Canvas X in Vista and it seemed to run fine. I haven't installed anything else yet (I use Windows-only apps under XP in Parallels or via a separate partition's Windows install on the MacBook using Apple's Boot Camp).

If I cared to I could install Linux, OS/2, etc. on the same machines and have OS wars!

[Gary Richardson]

I can think of very few instances, where installing more than one OS would help me do anything much more than bung up my hard drive(s).

If anyone can give me a few good reasons I'd be happy to hear them.

[chrishoggy]

I can think of one really big one Gary. So you can say you have a dual boot system with Vista on. You've got to look after your street cred, ain't ya It's a bit like having a wet shave with a disposable Bic razor, or having a wet shave with a Gillette Mac 3 turbo, with Power Gel. The day that I see a razor that requires/or has a turbo fitted, will be the day I give up on this planet . It's all about selling/having street credibility, or just being able to say you've got it/done it.
I would only do it for testing the OS or just having an OS installation that I can play around with. Other than that, it is pointless IMHO .

[NancyJ]

I can think of a reason to dual boot - compatability. If you've got some program that only works on a specific OS and you just cant bare to give it up - dual boot.
I knew people who dual booted XP and 98 for a while because they couldnt get everything working with XP.

I often consider dual booting linux and XP because I cant give up gaming and Photoshop for linux but at the end of the day, the times when I'm not gaming or using photoshop are kinda small.

As for razors - isnt battery powered, vibrating sonic razors with 4 blades the latest deal?

[chrishoggy]

isnt battery powered, vibrating sonic razors with 4 blades the latest deal?

Yeah, Fusion technology. It worked so well, it fused with my blood vestals and made me bleed all over the bathroom
But then again, I didn't use the fusion Hydro-gel, or the battery powered model. I'm sure that would have made a world of difference, having it buzzing as it cut my face and floating over some hydro-gel

Good point about compatibility though, and something the new VISTA customers may have trouble with.

[Frank Lopes]

Yes, You can... however this is not the faint of heart.

My recommendation is that you DO NOT do what I'm about to describe.

The font used can change with the OS language. If you are using the English edition of XP, the shell/system uses Tahoma. See this note http://support.microsoft.com/kb/823033/en-me

So, if I really wanted to mess things up, I would overwrite the font with some other font that I named Tahoma. And you are done.

Again you may end up with all kinds of readability issues, so my recommendation is DON'T do it.

If you want to change only specific areas, MS gives the ability to change some of them. Follow this KB article http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310543

Originally Posted by plugsnpixels

Tri- or quad-boot, my friends!
...BTW, can XP's default system font be changed to something more solid?...

[Gary Richardson]

If you've got some program that only works on a specific OS and you just cant bare to give it up - dual boot.

Can't think of too many programmes I find that indispensable.

Though I'll concede it's a reason, loss of large areas of your disk, and all the other complications caused by a dual-boot system just so you can run the odd programme doesn't seem to me to be a good reason.

I'm not trying to denigrate your reason, just giving my reaction. If it seems good to you that's fine. Me I like to keep things simple.

[plugsnpixels]

Hi Gary,

For me, two reasons: Practicality and curiousity.

Practicality: For my Plugs 'N Pixels website I need to run all sorts of plug-ins and apps. I'm Mac-based, and not everything runs on Mac. So I think it's great to be able to pop open Windows on my current machine and do what I need to do, then get back out. It works very well, and speed is similar to a dedicated PC if not better. I used to have to ask Windows-using friends to help me with screenshots and examples, and that was less than efficient.

Curiousity: As you can guess I like software, and I like checking out all kinds of things. So even if I don't need to, I can install a Windows app and play with it. Also, I got to check out Vista harmlessly, which probably would have been more difficult and dangerous to install on a non-Mac.

Windows being what it is, I can understand your relunctance to experiment and risk havoc with your system if it's your main boot method.

BTW, I work as IT in higher ed and we dual-boot iMacs with Windows. Guess where any of our problems are? I've also played with Ubuntu Linux on older G4 Macs (booting from the CD for a look-see), but bedsides browsing the web, I couldn't see much use for it... I understand I can run it under Parallels but haven't bothered.

[chrishoggy]

plugsnpixels post reminded me of a useful tip and tool.
When you have a problem with your windows system, and you need to recover files before losing everything, use KNOPPIX Live CD. Nice little OS that loads directly from the CD/DVD, and gives you access to your files.
I've used it on a few systems, and it has been worth it's weight in gold

CD/DVD can be downloaded at http://www.knoppix.org/

Worth getting, just in case something goes wrong with Windows

[Doug Nelson]

What firewall and AV software currently works well with Vista?

[Gary Richardson]

Here's a few AVs reputed to work with Vista. Only one I've heard good things about is Avast (no personal experience so can't verify accuracy of report).

Computer Associates (CA)
Avast (all products)
Symantec Corporate Edition (I'm not a lover of Symantec's products).

Vista is supposed to come with a new 2-way firewall (as opposed to the useless windows firewall (1-way)), though there is some controversy about how effective it is. Don't currently know of any 3rd party Firewalls that will work with Vista.

Thanks Chris & Plugs'n'Pixels, see there are good reasons for another OS if you look hard enough.

[Frank Lopes]

AV, Gary listed the candidates. I'm temporarily using the CA product until the Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6 product truly works in Vista...

I don't use software based firewalls... so I haven't researched what works or what doesn't. Vista, does have its own firewall... not great by any streches of the imagination, but it is better than not having anything.

Originally Posted by Doug Nelson

What firewall and AV software currently works well with Vista?

[Gary Richardson]

Nod32 are also supposed to be close to releasing a Vista compliant AV.

Both Kaspersky and Nod32 have the best scanners I know of, they're nearly always the first to get their definitions updated to allow them to detect new virus varients when they appear.

[Doug Nelson]

Well, I installed Vista RC1. It took two tries, as I didn't allocate enough space the first time (I read it needed 6gb, I gave it 10gb, it needs a minimum of 12gb, so I gave it 20gb). I also installed the MS antivirus/firewall service beta (I think it's called OneHelp), and it shows promise.

The main thing I don't like is it feels like trying to do everything while wearing boxing gloves. You can't just set things, you have to use wizards, and anytime you actually do anything it asks you at least twice if you REALLY want to do that.

[plugsnpixels]

Doug, as a Mac user using Windows XP more often lately (though I've used everything from DOS in the late '80s to Windows 95), I too feel that not only is Windows a constrictive environment, but it also treats users like idiots (I'm tired of being offered to take a tour of Windows XP and other such "messages", for instance, or being handheld all the way through a software install process).

I guess what we're dealing with in Vista is Microsoft's attempts at greater security. MS needs to do what Apple did and rewrite the OS from scratch so the user doesn't have to pay the price for its weaknesses. It's not enough for Vista to merely copy OS-X's look. Are they fooling anybody?

Anyway...

Gary, since we need the protection in Windows, what are the links for Kaspersky and Nod32?

[Frank Lopes]

Doug,

a couple of observations regarding your experience:

<<needs a minimum of 12gb>>
Which flavor did you install? Home? Pro? Ultra?

<<you have to use wizards>>
Well.... you don't have to, however wizards are indeed the default mechanism for most settings. Once you work with Vista for a while you'll discover that all your settings panels are there... just in different places.
Ms has also promised that everything will be able to be configured via the command line. I'm not a big fan of having to remember long and convoluted strings to do something, but I'm sure this will have fans.

<<asks you at least twice if you REALLY want to do that>> That is, no doubt about it, annoying. If you are brave enough, you can actually turn that "feature" off in the registry

Originally Posted by Doug Nelson

Well, I installed Vista RC1. It took two tries, as I didn't allocate enough space the first time (I read it needed 6gb, I gave it 10gb, it needs a minimum of 12gb, so I gave it 20gb). I also installed the MS antivirus/firewall service beta (I think it's called OneHelp), and it shows promise.

The main thing I don't like is it feels like trying to do everything while wearing boxing gloves. You can't just set things, you have to use wizards, and anytime you actually do anything it asks you at least twice if you REALLY want to do that.