Windows 7 beta: First impressions
Windows 7 could be one of Microsoft's greatest operating systems, if it fulfills the promise shown by the unofficial beta version (build 7000) we have been testing for the past couple of days.
Let me preface these quick impressions of Redmond's latest opus by saying that I came to Windows 7 after having happily run the much-maligned Windows Vista on my Intel Core 2 Duo-based PC for the past 18 months (alongside Ubuntu).
I found Vista to be a worthy upgrade from Windows XP SP2. Despite its obvious flaws (can you say "resource hog"?) and the acknowlegement that some of its features need to be disabled by default, Vista at heart is a much more stable and usable operating system than XP, which was first released in 2001.
The release of Service Pack 1 and gradual driver improvements have built on Microsoft's somewhat-shaky Vista beginning.
Coming from this background, I have been pleased to discover over the past several days that Microsoft appears to have built on Vista's strengths and addressed most of its weaknesses with the beta release of Windows 7.
I found the Windows 7 beta a painless install. Out-of-the-box driver support on our test machine was perfect, and it took only half an hour and two quick reboots to begin running a stable desktop environment, though we wondered why Windows 7 created a 200MB partition in addition to its main partition. The 33MB of updates quickly came down the pipe upon loading the desktop.
Basic desktop performance was strong; the reports that Windows 7 is simply faster than Vista appear to be true. Certainly, Windows 7 had no problem simultaneously installing and launching applications, downloading files, browsing the Web, and carrying out other tasks on our modest 2.8GHz Pentium 4, which has only an 80GB IDE hard disk and 512MB of RAM.
Vista's most visible annoyance, User Account Control, has been pared right back on its default setting, and we encountered it only a couple of times throughout a whole morning of installing applications. However, if you feel nostalgic for UAC's old behavior, you can easily change it back via Windows 7's new Action Center, which now centralizes all of the security updates and warning alerts that Windows throws your way.
Windows 7 recommended that we install a third-party antivirus package (it suggested Kaspersky and AVG), but its antispyware package Defender comes preinstalled. Microsoft appears to have an antivirus package installed under the hood; when downloading new software with Firefox, we were told that our downloads were being scanned for viruses.
I particularly like the new photo-realistic device icons, and the overhaul of the way Windows handles and ejects USB storage devices. Microsoft appears to have wiped out a lot of the Windows XP-era interface quirks of Vista; the result is a much more simplistic, unified experience for common tasks.
I also enjoyed the overhaul of the Windows taskbar, especially the slick graphics, but a bug prevented us from being able to use the preview function (it showed a black rectangle instead), and you'll want to play with the taskbar settings to get this piece of the Windows 7 puzzle just right. It's easy to get minimized windows mixed up with launcher buttons, for example.
I want to stress that we didn't test the Windows 7 beta exhaustively, and business users will need to closely examine deployment software and how the operating system integrates into their existing environments, as well as its ability to work well with third-party software. For example, we couldn't get Adobe Systems' Creative Suite 3 to install on Windows 7 beta; the installer told us we needed to quit Internet Explorer first.
But perhaps the most important thing to note about the software is that at first glance, it has much more of that nebulous "Windows XP feel" than Vista ever did. Even on our modest machine, Windows 7 didn't thrash the hard disk or ever feel unresponsive, except when we were installing Apple's iTunes, a notorious pain on Windows systems.
In general, this signals that Microsoft has spent a lot of effort with Windows 7 on delivering a solid operating system that won't "wow" anyone but will satisfy them on a much deeper level. In other words, just what the doctor--and the customers--ordered.
You can find a lot of further Windows 7 analysis on the ZDNet.com blog of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, as well as our own photo gallery here.
Renai LeMay of ZDNet Australia reported from Sydney.
One thing I wonder though - is it going to be too late to stop the bleeding?
Apple's growth curve is still looking like its on track, and once the number of users reach critical mass, I think that MSFT is going to start losing ground more rapidly, at least in the consumer space. The only question is, where is that critical mass of OSX users? Has it already been reached, or is it yet to come? I suspect that over this year, OSX use will go from its current 10% up to 15%, if not higher. The Apple stores at the malls are still packed to the rafters with shoppers, and Heaven help Microsoft if Apple ever gets a clue and refreshes the Mini (and/or even more, introduces a low-cost mini-tower).
I figure that MSFT will keep the business workstation space, at least as far as Macs are concerned - Linux stands a far better chance in the Enterprise than Apple does. That said, if MSFT loses the consumer space, then it loses control...
Anyrate, I'll happily wait until the final betas before playing with it - too much to do otherwise, at least at this stage.
/P
I think even you would like Win7, Penguinisto. If you approach it with an open mind, I think you will find a lot in there that you like and could use on a daily basis.
I guess googling news is too difficult so I will provide you with this link:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2009/01/02/apple-nabs-10-share-in-december-market-share-survey
Also, I believe that your reasoning as to why PC's took over in the first place is flawed - it had less to do with work/home systems and more to do with price, and here's why: A huge number of people were perfectly happy with buying a cheaper computer (maybe pre-installed with DOS), and installing a copied disk (or rather, set of floppies) of DOS and Windows in order to get a GUI-based computer. By contrast, a new Macintosh required buying... a new Mac, which back then was pretty expensive. There was also little to justify that additional cost Today is a far different story due to the rise of malware, OS efficiency factors, and hardware longevity...
@sanenazok: Google News is your friend - check it sometime:
http://www.tuaw.com/2009/01/02/apple-market-share-tops-10-windows-share-lowest-since-tracking/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10130137-37.html
Wouldn't your comments stating that need to purchase an entirely new computer when buying a Mac kept people from buying them in years past apply equally well today? I haven't seen that change, to be honest. The total cost of ownership has gone up, not down, over the years.
Also the argument about pirated copies of DOS and Windows may yet still apply in the majority of third world countries and indeed even in superpower countries including China. That's just my opinion though.
Good points you brought up. I can see your point of view. It's not one I agree with though. I am not in any position to say who is right. I think it may be more of a personal perspective.
That market share stat is based on statistics taken from visitors to certain websites. It certainly does not account for all the computers that: 1) Don't visit those selected sites and 2) Aren't connected to the internet. A very rough estimate is the best you'll get with that type of statistical information.
Actually no, because the dynamics have changed over time.
Back then, you had two unknowns that were considered to be roughly equal (that is, a Mac 68k was considered to be equivalent to an early Pentium, a G4 was considered to be the same as a Pentium III in performance, etc) - but there was no way to measure the actual performance gains or losses against each other. Nowadays, things are far different: the hardware on both types are known, because they're both the same. The prices are also equal: to get a Dell or HP (or other OEM) machine with the same specs that a same-class Apple comes with, you end up with prices that are roughly the same (that is, close enough that it doesn't matter). So you end up paying the same for either machine. The differences are now in the software, in reliability, customer satisfaction, ease-of-use, and other factors.
You're right, which means that there is a very high chance that Apple users are underrepresented, as not all of them use Safari ;)
/P
Will Grand Central and OpenCL do that? Maybe for a specific subset of the user base, but only a limited set of people need significantly more processing capability today. Users need greater ease of use, virus protection, stability, etc. TODAY. IF Windows 7 produces that then Grand Central and OpenCL won't be enough for Apple to keep growing market share.
The virus scan in Firefox is a feature in Firefox 3, not Windows. I have FF3 installed on a Vista machine, and every time I download something, it is scanned for viruses.
Apple produces great hardware, but note that they enjoyed their biggest sales increase AFTER moving to an Intel platform that allowed decent Windows dual-boot configurations (yes, I know emulation worked, but nowhere NEAR as well as Boot Camp or Parallels).
The corporation I work for skipped Vista, but the're already preparing for Win7. I wouldn't be surprised if many other corporations follow suit. Yes, there might be some downsides with custom apps (though they can likely still run on XP/2000 in emulation), but there are SO many upsides in terms of maintenance and deployment that the positives now far outweigh the negatives.
I view Win7 as an "R2" version of Vista, but for me that isn't a negative, either. I use Vista for apps, multimedia, and gaming, and I think it's a great platform (ESPECIALLY in its 64-bit version--I'm hoping MS encourages OEMs to drop 32 bit Windows entirely with this iteration). If this version really does perform that much better, then we all have something to look forward to.
"The prices are also equal: to get a Dell or HP (or other OEM) machine with the same specs that a same-class Apple comes with, you end up with prices that are roughly the same (that is, close enough that it doesn't matter). So you end up paying the same for either machine. "
I think you'll find a lot of people who disagree with that logic. Even the reality of the situation readily defeats that argument. The new 17" MacBook Pro at $2800 costs far far far more than any hardware-comparable PC running Windows or Linux. I daresay more than $1000-1500 more- a figure that any customer would have to really think twice about.
"The differences are now in the software, in reliability, customer satisfaction, ease-of-use, and other factors. "
Software varies between the two systems and really no longer applies today when a system is more a terminal than a independant system for work purposes. Reliability- as they are all the same manufacturers on the components- your argument falls flat there. Customer satisfaction- that one is good for Apple only if you don't actually have any problems. Go look at the world wide web for complaints about Apple Care or people who are on their 5th, 6th, or 12th system board for the same Macbook, or being told by Apple that they simply shouldn't bother coming back. There's plenty online about that- but to be fair, the same can be said about pretty much any company today for the IT hardware side. Ease-of-use- again, that varies upon your need. For newbies or people afraid of computers, then the Mac is a good choice. For business, you want Windows. For geeks, then Linux is there for you. Each has their purpose. Ease of use is not a factor there.
No sir, I do not agree with your points and find your argument to be rather tired and old. It may have applied in the 1990's, but today with the hardware being the same on both Macs and PC's, the price justification simply isn't there. If it was, then we'd see Macs as the dominant machine in the market over Linux and Windows systems and that simply isn't happening.
Yet. Apple could always change the rules of the game.
The new 17" MacBook Pro at $2800 costs far far far more than any hardware-comparable PC running Windows or Linux. I daresay more than $1000-1500 more- a figure that any customer would have to really think twice about.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try again. Really, find a comparable 17" laptop and compare prices. The one's you're looking at for a grand less have older and slower CPU's, less and slower memory, less powerful graphics cards, less screen resolution - in short not comparable machines at all. Take another look at the stats of the MacBook Pro 17". It's a pretty amazing machine for the money (which admittedly isn't chump change).
Really Dan, you have to give up the bull. It's not healthy for you.
Considering Microsoft's botched launch of Vista, Apple's advertising campaign and the iPhone/iPod halo effect has only pushed their global market share up by 2% in two years I doubt it. I'd also point out that Apple have always had a good representation in colleges but this doesn't translate into business.
As for 17" laptops, the fact that the Macbook pro doesn't come with an option for Quad core CPUs is just stupid and why the Lenovo W700 series are a much better choice for professionals who want a mobile workstation.
Most of the PCs out there are "PCs" and if MicroSoft does this right then they will continue to hold most of the market share.
These are all factors that companies have to consider in their choice of an OS. There is no one clear choice for everyone.
Apples to onions- I like that- that was clever. :)
The support scope is completely different between Linux and Windows cultures. Whom can I contact for direct on site Linux support with a financial guarantee against a set downtime allowance? When a company has equipment go down, that scope of service comes into play and if there are violations, that service company has to make up the difference in fines and paybacks. That's something that is common in the Windows / PC industry now. I can name off IBM, HP, Dell, and Siemens right off the top of my head that offer this to enterprise level customers. I'm not aware of any Linux providers that can offer that level of support- or the financial guarantee to back it up.
There may be indeed companies out there that do this for Linux, but they aren't making themselves known too well. RedHat does a good job of telephone and remotes support, but does not currently offer an on site presence with a contractual and financial guarantee of service like those others to my knowledge- I have to admit ignorance on this one for Redhat so you could probably tell me how they handle on site support.
Apple doesn't even come close to any of this. They simply don't have the support model in place. That may change, but the current reality is that they aren't prepared to offer this level of support currently. The only way they could possibly offer it to enterprise is to let go of their deathgrip on their OS and hardware to allow third parties to offer solutions.
Dell, HP, IBM - they all provide that for Linux, right now; same as they do for any other OS pre-loaded server they sell, come to think of it.
Apple has no such final structure in place... yet. I doubt that would be the case for very long if Apple ever does decide to move into the Enterprise, though.
Speaking as a fairly new Linux user, there's a reason more people support Windows than either Linux or Macintosh. When I was running XP, even as stable as that OS may be, I still had downtime. I still had to run antivirus scans, I still needed to defrag the system, I had to call MSFT support for help removing a nasty virus infestation. Other than that, there's the routine maintenance of cleaning up the cache and fixing the registry and so on and so on. I went to Linux and it's there when I want it, that's it. I run an antivirus scan once a day to protect my friends who use Windows, but otherwise there would be no need for even that at the moment. The only time I ever need to visit the forums is when I feel like installing something not listed in the repositories, like my antivirus program. In other words, like the Mac, when a person switches to Linux, the only thing most need to know is how to use it. Other than that, you just have fun with it.
I'm looking forward to this, Vista already runs fine for me on my newer Dell laptop with a Core 2 Duo so
Win7 should do nicely.
Great coverage cnet. Keep it up.
Furthermore, for such an old laptop I think you would be better off simply buying a new laptop. For only a couple hundred dollars more than what an OEM version of Windows 7 is likely to cost you could buy a laptop that uses a faster dual core processor, faster RAM, and probably even a larger HDD. I hate to break it to you, but P4s are really *old* and contrary to what the clock speed may imply they tend to run *slower* sometimes dramatically compared to many of the dual core processors on the market.
The last "new" mobile P4 was released almost five years ago, which means that your laptop at *best* case scenario is still probably over three years old. In the current economy I can completely understand people being reluctant to upgrade their computers on a whim, but it is only a matter of time before the hardware on your old laptop fails in which case you might as well get a new laptop because any repair is likely to be almost as expensive of a cheap new laptop. Except for the Intel Atom and the Via C7 virtually any current mobile processor will be considerably faster than your old P4 and you will get FAR better battery life. Considering all the benefits I think you would be much happier with a new computer than putting Windows 7 on your old laptop that is probably on its' last legs.
Linux will be able to save your computer as well, and for free.
PS The 200 MB System Partition has nothing do with GPT. And GPT has been supported for quite a while now.
Honestly, just as the version number implies Windows 6.1(AKA "7") is a much more polished version of Vista (ie. probably what Vista really ought to have been). Since they are reusing the same kernel most hardware drivers from Vista can be reused without issue. Hence, the whole snafu of the OS launching with so-so hardware support will be completely sidestepped. At this point there are still a lot of rough edges, but so far Windows 7 looks pretty good.
When college loan bills start coming in, the kids don't buy anything new for a while, means those Macs stick with them a lot longer.
Vista by all credible accounts is better in security than XP and OSX.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL. Thanks for the laugh, but your credibility went out the window.
Windows 7 though is starting to sound a lot like Windows XP (ie. a *very* minor update). Unlike XP, Windows 7 does appear to run faster than Vista on some hardware configurations, but the minor UI changes aside very little has changed under the hood. It will still be a big upgrade compared to XP, but for existing Vista users I don't see many compelling reasons to upgrade to Windows 7. It is a bigger update than a SP, but right now it doesn't appear to be worth more than a couple bucks for the added benefits(ie. right now I probably wouldn't advise anyone with Vista to waste their money on such a minor update).
I do the IT for my work and I have put a ban on all Vista machines, if anyone wants one, they have to do their own tech support. Win7 'looks' promising as it seems to out perform xp and blows Vista performance out of the water. I still have a wait and see attitude to see if they fix the software backwards compatibility problems.
What exactly do you get that you can't get with other non-apple hardware or OSes?
My computer is self built, faster, hasn't crashed, costs less, runs more applications (many of which are free). So, again, what don't we get? Perhaps the apple elitism?
:)
Really?
What hardware do the design and produce?
They are an OEM with their own OS. Apple or Dell are not hardware companies, Intel and Nvidia are.
It isn't all about catch up and Macs are not overpriced for what you get.
Mac's are indeed overpriced; you could get the same thing for free from Ubuntu.
You can also say that Microsoft is moving towards Apple's tactic of doing software and hardware. The XBox is a computer and you do not see Microsoft letting other companies licensing that software, or do you? If you do not understand that now, you will in a few years when more people start using their "XBox" to browser the web and read email with their large Plasma TVs. The PC as we know it ... will not exist in 10 years.
Why give them more money?
My office and home has been all Microsoft since personal computers were marketed. After terrible experiences with Vista one son finally changed to a Mac and now would never go back. At our office I stopped all use of Vista. It was a nightmare on our Miscrosoft office network.
My university age daughter had dreadful experiences with a new Dell Studio laptop with Vista this past summer. She returned it and in the past month acquired her first ever Macbook. She constantly raves about how amazingly easy and fast it is (compared to the Vista laptop) and says she would now never go back to a Windows computer. Prior to this she had no interest whatever in computers except as a necessary school tool. Now she says she in love with her new computer.
I don't see that Microsoft is yet anywhere near comprehending the flaws in their OS development strategy and so I too will be looking at my first ever Mac for my next computer. I am tired of waiting and waiting for Microsoft to finally put out a genuinely good new OS.
Reviewer LeMay says Windows 7 "won't "wow" anyone but will satisfy them on a much deeper level." Well, I'm sorry, but if Windows 7 does not "wow" while the Mac OS most certainly does, Windows 7 wil not be used by me or in my office (25 workstations) anymore. "wow" is essential.
Every objection about Vista you speak of is 10 fold on the Mac experience. Oh nooooo somebody caught you in your deception?
Although I've been using "7" to a degree,...
and,... from what I've witnessed so far,... it's a clear usher for...
ASTALAVISTA....
Every objection about Vista you speak of is 10 fold on the Mac experience.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull. Just bull. It's painfully obvious that you have never used a Mac before at all and equally obvious that you have only the faintest idea what a computer actually does under the covers. Now go tell your masters you have done their bidding and hope they pay you for it.
It seems to be that you are the type of person that spreads this falsity that Vista is a horrible OS.
First and foremost, your "Wow" comment shows just what type of office you run. When you need stability and compatibility, "Wow" should NEVER be a factor in what computer your company uses. "Wow" is what you get for home use when you first open Media Center and see at how much more intuitive it is then Apple's offering. "Wow" should not be considered for a production environment.
Also, your "bad" experience with should not be blamed on MS, but the OEM's you purchased the machines from. MS is only partially to blame for allowing the OEM's to install their unnecessary junk software they do that causes machine to be sluggish, unresponsive. and buggy. A clean installation of Vista loaded with only the programs one needs makes for a speedy machine.
We've configured and installed hundreds of Vista machines that have had almost no issues, short of a few porrly written drivers.
Wow?
If you want wow, switch to Ubuntu.
Or Linux in general.
And guess what? You won't have to pay over $1500 for it.
Its FREE.
In other words, put a real OS on it and see how crappy Vista is.
I'm poor.
I can't afford to be continually buying something as expensive as a Mac.
I'm an everyday user, I went to Ubuntu with no issues. Actually, I went to Ubuntu after burning the OS to a CD and installed it directly from XP with no issues since everything ran like any other program would on XP. It even handled partitioning of the hard drive for me as well as updating and installing any and all drivers I needed for my comp. Not sure what's so hard about that, but apparently I can't do anything I've done so I might as well go back to XP.
Most of us were pretty happy with VHS until DVDs came along ... right?
/Sarcasm
Do you really think market share has anything to do with having a quality OS? If so, then because Paris Hiltons name has a greater market share than yours, she's a better person than you. Mention her name in most countries around the world I'm betting they've heard of her, mention yours and they'll look at me funny. I'm really hoping your "point" about market share doesn't hold up there anymore than it does between Windows and Mac OS
It's kind of like the quote from "Raising Arizona" "If you want to hail a cop, you'll find him at a donut shop." If you want to find a Mac, the nut didn't far very fall from the apple tree. Apple fanboyism is about as rife on here as anywhere else.
"Don't sit under the Apple tree with anybody else but Steve". That about says it. Now, I'm not a fan of Bilge Gates, but I'd rather a business man handle files than a fruit vendor.
I notice the same names here popping up again and again. Troll house kooks.
Xemiphore
Windows Vista is anything but "a worthy upgrade from XP". What do you do online, and with your computer, play Solitaire and IM your friends on AOL?
Even when Vista is cut down, themes and unneeded services disabled, and after numerous performance tweaks, Vista is still fairly unstable, slow and "buggy".... 2 years later. How can anyone believe that MS will somehow make everything right with Windows 7?
Windows 7 is "The" operating system Windows Vista victims paid for already. That's what MS promised in all their BS commercials and advertisements. Now a couple of years later, after milking Billions out of consumers, they come out with yet "another" XP replacement to make everything right for the millions of people who were lied to and defrauded out of their money.
This is bullsh1t people. A scheme to maximize their profits.... and anyone who supports Microsoft by buying another Vista FLOP deserves to be parted with his/her hard earned money.
Microsoft has lied so many times and delivered too many false promises for me to take them seriously, in any respect.
Depending upon your hardware, I would agree although I think that the performance issues are a bit overstated. While I have seen some older machines overwhelmed by Vista, a lot of the fastest OS installs and start times I have seen on a Windows machine were all Vista boxes.
Unstable?
I won't say that Vista can't crash, but I can say with a straight face that I haven't seen a blue screen of any kind since Vista has been released and I have primarily used Vista since late '06.
I will agree that MS oversold the benefits of Vista, but I would remind you that MS oversold the benefits of XP before it, and 98 before it, and 95 before it. I laughed the last time I installed Windows 98 in a virtual machine how the install program touts the "stability" of Windows 98, which as anyone who ran 98 remembers was an absolute joke compared to any of the NT based versions of Windows. You have to be a sucker or an absolute newbie to not realize that MS oversells their products and that most of their product claims are to be taken with a grain of salt unless a trust third party have verified their claims.
Furthermore, EVERY commercial software company NOT just MS pushes out new versions that require money to upgrade frequently. I am not a MS fanboy, but I realize that MS isn't unique in this respect. MacOS X wasn't really much good until at least 10.1 if not 10.2 depending upon who you ask, but upgrading to 10.1, which is more like what 10.0 ought to have been was a $129 upgrade. Just like Apple they have to pay their engineers to write updates.
"Wow Dan, M$ has really spent time teaching you diplomacy haven't they. "
I am not employed by Microsoft. I do beileve that polite debate with respect for others is far more beneficial to the forum at large rather than using childish taunts or poor behavior however.
FYI: Win7 Beata is release 7, and not 6.1. I know it's a small thing, but it's something that stands out in the comments.
C'mon Microsoft, show us your guns and do the right thing.
By then Apple will have two more releases out of OS-X ... and who knows.. maybe it will be called OS-11.. eh?
Microsoft just wants to string you along and keep you interested so that you would wait for them to fix their OS. The real question is .. CAN THEY FIX IT?
Here are my predictions. By the end of 2010 Windows usage will erode to 80% and very likely will break into the 70's ... specially after Apple realizes it is time to license OS-X to a few of the large PC vendors (like Dell and HP). You did not believe Apple would use Intel .. did you? Then why wouldn't you believe this could happen? Remember, they secretly had OS-X for Intel and PowerPCs for every release ... which was not so hard as NeXTStep worked on PCs.
Come on, love the tentacle.
Heh.. good one. I can put whatever hardware I want, 500 times the software available for Apple, and do anything I want with my PC. Sorry, but Macs are the slaves.
Awesome comment. "Come on, love the tentacle." That had me rolling on the floor, man.
The level of security is purely up to you, the end user. You can choose what level of UAC you wish to use, or none at all. Now the control is in your hands and nobody to blame but yourself depending upon what you have selected.
"Do you realize that XP also had the virtualized user account folders? Vista didn't "start" your woes. You just didn't know what you were doing."
Uh, maybe we're talking about different issues here .. in XP I can actually OPEN a real user profile folder (such as app data for instance) with real files and copy/paste/delete, etc, just like a real adult. In Vista I never could find a way because you cannot open those folders .. they are literally virtual, as in not real. If you have a different experience let me know what I'm doing wrong. When I ran into that I just decided to stop struggling with Vista and converted 2 of my 3 Vista machines. I still need one for software testing. But I'm not signing up for not being able to get to and control my own data.
" Based on the beta that is out there now, the UAC has been turned down a lot to be less intrusive as a result of complaints from people like you. You should be pleased with the results, I believe.
The level of security is purely up to you, the end user. You can choose what level of UAC you wish to use, or none at all. Now the control is in your hands and nobody to blame but yourself depending upon what you have selected."
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that UAC is the issue here. It's a systemwide setup I believe, as far as user account folders go. If you're beta testing 7 can you check to see if you can open/edit files in the user account folders?
Exactly!
MS can't understand security, much less implement it correctly so they shoved it on their ignorant end-users so they can point fingers.
Did you know that every single new security "feature" the hacks in Redmond duck-taped to Vista has been broken?
Every. Single. One.
@dalkorian
Sorry, but Macs are the slaves.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first time Apple locks me out of my Mac because of some idiotic bug in their licensing scheme, forcing me to phone them to re-activate my OS just to get at my own files, I'll agree with you. Look it up, it's called WGA and is nothing more than a bull whip to keep you in line like a good little slave. It was a beta program in ex-pee, but it come designed right into the core of fista and I seriously doubt they will drop it for fista sp 3.
Until Apple does this to their customers, you're full of fertilizer.
-
by Maclover1
January 7, 2009 8:28 AM PST
- Major Pro MS BIAS IMHO. A few examples....
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
-
by LuvThatCO2
January 7, 2009 10:12 AM PST
- "At first it had some serious pauses for no reason at making me think it was hung but then it would come back alive. More usable???? "
-
-
-
by BigGuns149
January 7, 2009 11:43 AM PST
- The sad fact is that you are right. Plain vanilla original MS supplied Vista with the proper drivers sans any other baggage tends to run well on the vast majority of new hardware. Heck, it takes LESS time to install Vista than XP on most computers.
-
-
-
by Sabroson
January 10, 2009 6:42 PM PST
- Windows XP is still the Windows OS of choice. Nor Vista, or a beta of Windows 7 will change that. Once Windows 7 is released (in 2010?) we will see if the story changes.
-
-
Showing 1 of 6 pages (295 Comments)"Vista at heart is a much more stable and usable operating system than XP, which was first released in 2001."
Really I never had a problem with XP. I found it ROCK SOLID if you it was setup right. Still is today. I cant even remember the last time XP hung or BS or I had to power it down to get it to respond. Same goes for Vista its rock solid to be honest. At first it had some serious pauses for no reason at making me think it was hung but then it would come back alive. More usable???? So is Vista more usable when you try to run an application you own, that works fine on XP, has a problem running on Vista? Is Vista more usable with UAC or more cumbersome? The point you were trying to make is XP is dead please move on to the new Windows...basically promoting Vista/7.
When I read this I almost spit coffee on my screen...
"Basic desktop performance was strong; the reports that Windows 7 is simply faster than Vista appear to be true. Certainly, Windows 7 had no problem simultaneously installing and launching applications, downloading files, browsing the Web, and carrying out other tasks on our modest 2.8GHz Pentium 4, which has only an 80GB IDE hard disk and 512MB of RAM."
512MB of RAM, yeah a pure joy I am sure. Any one that has ever installed an OS knows one thing for sure. Its super fast after the initial OS load, once the lastes drivers are installed. Its quick, it boots up fast, shuts down fast etc. Then you load apps, use files, temp files are created and the hard drive gets fragged....the OS slows down. I think you forgot this, and sure a clean install of Windows 7 was faster on a system with 512megs of RAM that had Vista on it for months?
I agree with you here...
"Microsoft appears to have wiped out a lot of the Windows XP-era interface quirks of Vista; the result is a much more simplistic, unified experience for common tasks. "
You could tell Vista was not done. You would have nice new shiny dialog boxes and animations in most places followed up with stuff from XP???? Did not have time to finish it. So I guess Windows 7 is Vista finished in so many ways?
So for all those that purchased Vista, MS would like to thank you for paying for their beta test. Now please give us more money for the finished product.
I had this exact problem with a Dell running Vista. Until I installed the proper motherboard drivers. Has run perfectly since.
I find that 90% of what people consider 'Vista' problems are really driver problems, usually video drivers. A lot of it is also the crapware that gets pre-installed. Vista itself, if you install it properly onto a blank drive using only the MS supplied Vista DVD (and no crapware) is a very smooth, stable OS.