Beta 2 Impressions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marco
  • Start date Start date
M

Marco

As a memeber of the general public just dying for the general release of
Beta 2, I'm a little concerned that the well respected Paul Thurrott isn't
too impressed with the current build of Beta 2. As most of you guys are
priviliged to be using it now I'd be interested to see if you agree with his
latest comments.
 
Marco said:
As a memeber of the general public just dying for the general release of
Beta 2, I'm a little concerned that the well respected Paul Thurrott isn't
too impressed with the current build of Beta 2. As most of you guys are
priviliged to be using it now I'd be interested to see if you agree with his
latest comments.
Click to expand...
Well...it's like this. What exactly are the goals of Vista? I suppose if
one could be privy to that answer, one could then understand what has
been achieved toward that goal. But not knowing the goals....
However most of us, no matter how important we think we are and where we
are placed in the great food chain that is MS, don't really have a clear
idea or understanding of exactly what it is that Vista is trying to be.
Therein lies the problem. Those of us who where in on the development of
95-98, 2k-XP, could clearly see certain final goals that we wanted to
achieve and that made them achievable. Vista on the other hand,
sometimes seems to be a ship without a captain and no port in sight.
Trying to look good, yet only skin deep.
It seems as if something that had become simpler to use over the years,
as in 95 to xp, is now more complex and far less satisfying. It's been
years in the making, yet works like it's only months old. The 'insiders"
all say, "it'll be much better when it's RTM", but those of us with a
lot of beta experience know the foundation and fundamentals are already
in stone and will not change that much, if at all.
In the end, I suppose we will accept it as usable, if not likable. Then
again, we always have xp, which just might turn out to be the "great one".
Just my thoughts and experience.
Frank
 
Well, yeah, I agree, its slow, a little bit buggy, UAC is annoying, I was
hoping for a wow factor on Install Time. I wish there was better hardware
support, Explorer layout still needs improvements, Networking is a mind
maze, a lot of the networking windows could definitely do with some
consolidation. But, its a major step up from BETA 1, if the Windows Team
never bothered with interim builds, 5384/BETA 2 would seem more favorable
journalist and testers eyes, but the interim releases have made it seem
incremental.

I am hoping to changes in interim builds and RC1 going forward, I want to
see more of my bugs fixed.
--
--
Andre
Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
 
Well I guess I"ll just have to wait till it's available then make up my own
mind. It doesn't sound like I"m going to be able to say "WOW" but it's going
to be the "standard" OS for millions of people around the world within a
couple of years and whether we like it or not we're going to have to live
with it. I remember the public XP Beta and at the time being impressed. XP
has come a long way since then so I guess Vista will develop and mature as
well in time.

So although my enthusiasm has has been tempered by people's comments...I
still can't wait. Come on Microsoft we're dying out here!
 
Marco said:
As a memeber of the general public just dying for the general release of
Beta 2, I'm a little concerned that the well respected Paul Thurrott isn't
too impressed with the current build of Beta 2. As most of you guys are
priviliged to be using it now I'd be interested to see if you agree with
his latest comments.
Click to expand...


The more I read his Vista artices he's a major DORK!!
 
Most of the comments and views about Vista fall into a few categories:



1.. Things that don't work right
2.. Overall look and feel
3.. Things that have changed
4.. New features
Category 1 is expected since it's still in Beta. As an example, in beta
5308 selecting a different icon for desktop icons did not work correctly.
That is fixed in 5384. The list here is long.



Category 2, look and feel is somewhat subjective. Vista is clearly
different. Some like it, some hate it. Opinions here are like that body
part, everybody's got one.



For many of the common things I do, Vista requires more keystrokes or mouse
clicks than previous versions of Windows. Windows Explorer is still a mess
and will probably change.



Category 3, the things that have changed may be a problem area. The new UAC
is a pain for most experienced users and most of these folks will
immediately look for the way to turn it completely off.



Some features common to XP are either gone, not available, or reduced in
options. Backup is one example. In XP you had many choices. In Vista,
very few.



Category 4 is where MS will likely focus for sales. For me, this area is
very weak as it includes many things I neither need, want, or things I
already have.



The current betas are very large installs taking 7 GB or more of disk space.
This will go down in the final, but we really don't know how much.



Once we get to RTM will see how the above list shapes up.



Ed
 
the well respected Paul Thurrott

Wow, it's been a while I've seen that in a sentence... :-/
 
The goal to me is clear... get a fresh start and try to do it right.

The graphic architecture in windows is designed for non HW accelerated 2d processing.
the 3d driver model is slapped on top and can barely take any regular use in desktop mode.
The driver model in XP is also weak and inefficient, and the multimedia API is laughable.
Vista is supposed to fix that so the other team have solid ground to build on.
For example the desktop team can get a look an feel that can match OSX, where windows dont tear when moving
and the mouse got smooth motion... Little cosmetic details, that deliver a huge perception diference.
(Anyone using an Amiga with its 60hz mouse sync refresh was laughting hard, or sobbing, when ever they saw a windows cursor in
motion)
In a way Vista is very inspired by existing and past technology and design,
so you could measure Vista on how it made windows catch-up/surpase OSX technology.

The way its been layed out, Vista is really a long list of Fix and changes to finaly unlock and maximize the existing
PC HW potential and open it up for the future.

Stephan
 
Hi Stephan,

Stephan said:
The goal to me is clear... get a fresh start and try to do it right.
Click to expand...

I wish!
The graphic architecture in windows is designed for non HW accelerated 2d processing.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the graphics are just surface tinsel to try and impress home
users; this isn't a fresh start, it's just NT/2000/XP with a silly front
end and a slew of annoying background processes - most of which are a
complete waste of time. The IPv6 is a true step forward. The setup
program is also a step forward (although most people will never see
it!), hardware support looks good too, but it's not "fresh start" not by
a long way.
 
Hi Frank,
However most of us, no matter how important we think we are and where we
are placed in the great food chain that is MS, don't really have a clear
idea or understanding of exactly what it is that Vista is trying to be.
Click to expand...

Nor do Microsoft! (but see below)

The way I see it is that computers and Windows have become a bit like
mobile phones, cars and TVs. No one outside the big corporate IT
departments care about the technical details anymore, it's all about
what color it is, and whether it has an "elegant sliding action". The
selling points are all about lifestyles and HDTV.

But in a way Microsoft are right; they've seen the commodity market and
are addressing it.
 
Gerry Hickman said:
Hi Stephan,



I wish!


Yes, but the graphics are just surface tinsel to try and impress home users; this isn't a fresh start, it's just NT/2000/XP with a
silly front end and a slew of annoying background processes - most of which are a
Click to expand...

The desktop team using the new graphic capability for their UI is one use.
The eye candy part of Vista actually translate to something tangible for many developers.

The cleaned up Vista graphic architecture allow developers to start thinking of the untap graphic power in PC's
For example, Movie Maker... its all CPU based. Why? Because it doesn't do graphic operation.. or could it be because
the XP platform is a minefield for desktop 3d development.
With Vista the MS team can write Vista software that tap into all that unused resource and dont need to worry about
stability or compatability.

Even so this stuff is a bit overkill for most business app, presentation software can soar on Vista.
Keynote compared to Powerpoint is an example as to what a good foundation can deliver.

note: We currently do allot with d3d in our desktop apps, but its a struggle to make it work decently under XP.
complete waste of time. The IPv6 is a true step forward. The setup program is also a step forward (although most people will never
see it!), hardware support looks good too, but it's not "fresh start" not by a long way.
Click to expand...

The big thing for me is unleasing the GPU, and handling basic concept better (like multiple screen)

I guess I see Vista with developers eyes, and I come with answer to so many problems :)

Stephan
 
Hi Stephan,

Yes I can see what you are saying is all valid, but what I find most of
the time is that the "wizz-bang-semi-transparent" apps are usually
written by marketing types who then put a ton of SpyWare into the app
and it ends up either not being very useful or it's unstable because of
trying to be clever. When I look at apps on my own system, I just tend
to find the most useful things are the simple ones.

In terms of Video Editing, we've had DirectDraw and Overlay for years
and that's all you need for pro editing. There's a huge interest in
software such as VirtualDub because it's not Microsoft, is simple, and
doesn't try to use silly Direct3d features and WMV (which causes lag at
starup). Movie maker is just badly written. I wrote my own Video Editor
using the DirectShow SDK and it's better than Microsoft's, but home
users would hate it because it doesn't look like a toy. I also use XviD
which is better than Microsoft's WMV encoder/decoder by a factor of
about 10, but obviously most home users wouldn't know where to start so
they end up with Microsoft's pathetic media offerings.

Anyway, where's all the trumpet blowing stuff about OpenGL improvements
in Vista?? At least if we write OpenGL we can compile x-platform.
 
Gerry Hickman said:
Hi Stephan,

Yes I can see what you are saying is all valid, but what I find most of the time is that the "wizz-bang-semi-transparent" apps are
usually written by marketing types who then put a ton of SpyWare into the app and it ends up either not being very useful or it's
unstable because of trying to be clever. When I look at apps on my own system, I just tend to find the most useful things are the
simple ones.
Click to expand...

I think MS just had to do it, OSX just make XP look quaint. (Not talking about functionality, just look and feel)
(FYI: I use XP in classic mode with zero animation, and I dislike OSX windows animation :)
In terms of Video Editing, we've had DirectDraw and Overlay for years and that's all you need for pro editing. There's a huge
interest in
Click to expand...

I disagree. First overlay are junk (But we use overlay in one of our app, and I want it out! :)
and what does DirectDraw give you over GDI ?

The missing link is accelerated image composition and processing library.
Its really the graphic card job nowdays, not the CPU.
software such as VirtualDub because it's not Microsoft, is simple, and doesn't try to use silly Direct3d features and WMV (which
causes lag at starup). Movie maker is just badly written. I wrote my own Video Editor
Click to expand...

Why do you consider the GPU a silly thing?
The CPU is already sweating with the CODECs, no need to make the CPU also do what the GPU can do better.
using the DirectShow SDK and it's better than Microsoft's, but home users would hate it because it doesn't look like a toy. I also
use XviD which is better than Microsoft's WMV encoder/decoder by a factor of about 10, but obviously most home users wouldn't know
where to start so they end up with Microsoft's pathetic media offerings.
Click to expand...

Good to see that you know DirectShow.

Editing tools can live at all level. MovieMaker got its place.
With MovieMaker I wanted to show that a given design with XP, you can have a better implementation
if developed on an OS with a better foundation.
MovieMaker, like 'ALL' microsoft dektop app dont use D3D because of the support nightmare
(MCE media player is THE exeption... and its not without its troubles)

MovieMaker , VDub, ... would benefit from the GPU.
VDub was pretty much design at first to transcode... But look how much slower it is compare to ATI transcoding tool.
like 10x slower? and its not like vdub is bloatware. Its not all a result of D3D, but GPU shaders help.

Final cut Pro on the MAC uses Apple GPU accelerated image library, and its a good thing.
We saw a 4x speedup in our case comparing SSE2 vs PS2.0 (P4 3ghz VS radeon 9800)
Anyway, where's all the trumpet blowing stuff about OpenGL improvements in Vista?? At least if we write OpenGL we can compile
x-platform.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that OpenGL is 'dead' with Vista.

Since you cant use OpenGL as it was intended, you need to build yourself a layer of avstraction to
take full advantage of OpenGL on OSX and Dx10 on vista.

Regards,

Stephan
 
As a memeber of the general public just dying for the general release of
Beta 2, I'm a little concerned that the well respected Paul Thurrott
isn't
too impressed with the current build of Beta 2. As most of you guys are
priviliged to be using it now I'd be interested to see if you agree with
his
latest comments.
Click to expand...


I removed it after a week, the Microsoft drivers were far too unstable on
my Sony Vaio with GEforce Go6200 chipset, it had real trouble with 1200 x
800 resolutions (my native resolution). Had problems with hibernation
(memory parity errors on resume), various compatability probems. I know
it's a beta, but it feels me like an Alpha. I reported all these issues
using the bug reporting tool.
 
Back
Top