Is everyone happy with Vista?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beck
  • Start date Start date
B

Beck

I tried the old beta a few months ago and it was very flaky and buggy. I
downloaded the new one the other day but something went wrong with it and
the product keys that were sent to me. So I ordered the DVD.
I am downloading it again to try a second time (3hrs left maybe I wasted £12
on buying it).

Anyway I am just wondering how stable this new version is? From what I
understand its the final version before release next year (except for bug
fixes).

I did like Vista when I tried it but one of my bugbears was the new layout
for programs. Alot of things took more clicks to get to and things didn't
seem to have that easy to find process that XP has. I know, it will just be
a case of getting used to the new layout but some things felt unnecessarily
longwinded.

For those that tried the other betas, have things changed much in the latest
version? How is stability?

IIRC my laptop scored 2 in the performance scale. 1.5Ghz processor, 1Gb ram
and 128mb min of graphics. So its not the greatest specification. Once I
get it installed I will probably tone down the graphics and have it running
on basic. I am not one for fancy desktops, I just want to functionality.
 
The current version is BETA 2; There will still be at least a Release
Candidate (RC 1); and possibly an RC2.

It does not matter what experiences others are having. The only way you'll
know if it is for you is to try it.

Bobby
 
So far, after a couple of weeks, I think this is the best beta OS so far. I
have not had a crash, everything works. The more I use Vista Explorer, the
more I like it. I think the change in the interface of Office (except in
Outlook) is much more dramatic than in Vista.

William
 
The current Vista beta #5384 is very stable. We have had no hangs or
BSOD and the OS is generally working properly. We has disabled as many
of the "security features" as is possible, logon as Administrator, and
use Firefox and Thunderbird for Internet communications. We would
certainly not use Internet Explorer if there was an alternate
application program.
The big question is what is left in Vista, after the above changes, that
makes it any improvement over Windows 2003 Server/XT ? The answer to
this question is unknown at this time.

Robbie
 
Robert said:
The current Vista beta #5384 is very stable. We have had no hangs or
BSOD and the OS is generally working properly. We has disabled as many
of the "security features" as is possible, logon as Administrator, and
use Firefox and Thunderbird for Internet communications. We would
certainly not use Internet Explorer if there was an alternate
application program.
The big question is what is left in Vista, after the above changes, that
makes it any improvement over Windows 2003 Server/XT ? The answer to
this question is unknown at this time.

Robbie
Click to expand...
Sorry about the slip of the tongue, it should read Windows Explorer not
Internet Explorer.
Robbie
 
Robert said:
The current Vista beta #5384 is very stable. We have had no hangs or
BSOD and the OS is generally working properly. We has disabled as many
of the "security features" as is possible, logon as Administrator, and
use Firefox and Thunderbird for Internet communications. We would
certainly not use Internet Explorer if there was an alternate
application program.
The big question is what is left in Vista, after the above changes,
that makes it any improvement over Windows 2003 Server/XT ? The
answer to this question is unknown at this time.

Robbie
Click to expand...

You should try to run it with the security enabled. The whole point of
running Beta 2 is to find problems. If you have problems running with
security enabled report the problems. Running as you do you may as well be
using XP. The big improvement over XP is the different security model which
you are trying to defeat. There is no comparison with Server 2003 as Vista
Beta 2 is not a server OS.
 
Beck said:
I tried the old beta a few months ago and it was very flaky and
buggy. I downloaded the new one the other day but something went
wrong with it and the product keys that were sent to me. So I
ordered the DVD. I am downloading it again to try a second time (3hrs left
maybe I
wasted £12 on buying it).

Anyway I am just wondering how stable this new version is? From what
I understand its the final version before release next year (except
for bug fixes).

I did like Vista when I tried it but one of my bugbears was the new
layout for programs. Alot of things took more clicks to get to and
things didn't seem to have that easy to find process that XP has. I
know, it will just be a case of getting used to the new layout but
some things felt unnecessarily longwinded.

For those that tried the other betas, have things changed much in the
latest version? How is stability?

IIRC my laptop scored 2 in the performance scale. 1.5Ghz processor,
1Gb ram and 128mb min of graphics. So its not the greatest
specification. Once I get it installed I will probably tone down the
graphics and have it running on basic. I am not one for fancy
desktops, I just want to functionality.
Click to expand...

I have a test system with very similar specs. I want to test how Vista runs
on minimal hardware. I do not use Aero Glass as the graphics card doesn't
have WDDM drivers. It is slower than XP on the same machine. I was however
pleasantly surprised to find that the system is usable. I use Office 2007
Beta and Expressions Web Design Beta on it. It is a viable computer for
Office, Outlook connected to Exchange, and light web design work. Beta 2 is
more stable than previous versions but it is possible to mess it up. The
worst problem I've had so far was messing up a user profile by going to
java.com and letting it install java online. IE 7 quit working for that
profile. It only affected the user I used to install java (a standard user).
I was able to logon as an administrator and fix the problem by uninstalling
the version of java that was loaded automatically and installing the proper
beta version for Vista. I recommend setting up a standard user and running
as that user. This way it's hard to mess up the system. This also seems to
mitigate the impact of UAC. If you try to do something that needs admin
privileges it usually only asks you once for an admin user name and password
then performs the task. If you are actually logged on as the admin you keep
getting multiple UAC prompts for the same task.

This is one experience only on a very plain jane system - Vista Beta 2 32
bit installed on a P4 1.6 GHz, 1 GB ram, Intel 845 chipset, ATI Radeon 7000
AGP with 64 MB, one PATA 20 GB hard drive, and one combo CD/DVD burner. On a
laptop you may run into driver problems.
 
Kerry said:
You should try to run it with the security enabled. The whole point of
running Beta 2 is to find problems. If you have problems running with
security enabled report the problems. Running as you do you may as well be
using XP. The big improvement over XP is the different security model which
you are trying to defeat. There is no comparison with Server 2003 as Vista
Beta 2 is not a server OS.
Click to expand...
Hi Kerry,

A server version of Vista (Longhorn) is available and we have evaluated it.
I do agree that users should test the Microsoft security features. We
have tried them and have previously commented on their functionality.
Our primary concern is the security risk of outside connections; that
is, the Internet, Wi-Fi and other network communications. There is no
absolute way to protect against intrusion by someone who gains physical
access to a computer, regardless of whether or not the data may be
encrypted.
Microsoft has a dismal history regarding computer security problems, but
they certainly deserve credit for correcting security problems as they
have been identified and for trying to improve their application program
and operating system security.
As noted in another message, we have found the best Internet security is
to use a good hardware firewall, to use Firefox rather than Internet
Explorer as a browser, and to disable ActiveX ( not available in Firefox
), Java script, cookies, images, media players and various other browser
options. We also avoid opening any Internet attachments except in rare
circumstances. We miss some benefits of the Internet by taking these
steps, but they do help minimize intrusion problems.

Robbie
 
It is nearly feature-complete, if that is what you mean by final, and if no
new decisions affecting the feature set are made (always possible).

I am happy with it as a beta. I would not be happy with it as a final.
 
The current Vista beta #5384 is very stable. We have had no hangs or
BSOD and the OS is generally working properly. We has disabled as many
of the "security features" as is possible, logon as Administrator, and
use Firefox and Thunderbird for Internet communications. We would
certainly not use Internet Explorer if there was an alternate
application program.
The big question is what is left in Vista, after the above changes, that
makes it any improvement over Windows 2003 Server/XT ? The answer to
this question is unknown at this time.

Robbie
Click to expand...

Exactly the same here Robbie, everything disabled and running in Admin
using FF & Tbird not IE7 would not touch it with a 10 foot pole.. Much
prettier GUI but thats about it really. OTOH it is pretty stable and
nice to use but one wonders why bother as most of the promised
features which would have made it the best MSFT OS yet have been
either badly implemented (UAC) or removed altogether to meet
unrealistic launch deadlines.

Still its not the final version yet so there is time to make it worth
our while, can't see it myself though there is not enough to warrant
the expense of upgrading from a (small) buisness POV. It will be very
hard to sell in its current form.

Jonah
 
Robert said:
Hi Kerry,

A server version of Vista (Longhorn) is available and we have
evaluated it. I do agree that users should test the Microsoft
security features. We have tried them and have previously commented on
their functionality.
Our primary concern is the security risk of outside connections; that
is, the Internet, Wi-Fi and other network communications. There is no
absolute way to protect against intrusion by someone who gains
physical access to a computer, regardless of whether or not the data
may be encrypted.
Microsoft has a dismal history regarding computer security problems,
but they certainly deserve credit for correcting security problems
as they have been identified and for trying to improve their
application program and operating system security.
As noted in another message, we have found the best Internet security
is to use a good hardware firewall, to use Firefox rather than
Internet Explorer as a browser, and to disable ActiveX ( not
available in Firefox ), Java script, cookies, images, media players
and various other browser options. We also avoid opening any Internet
attachments except in rare circumstances. We miss some benefits of
the Internet by taking these steps, but they do help minimize
intrusion problems.
Robbie
Click to expand...

I don't know of any small computer OS's that are secure if you have physical
access. I haven't had time to do more than a cursory trial but bitlocker
seems to be as secure as anything else if physical security is needed.

I still think you are missing the point about Vista security. If you setup a
standard user and use IE 7 in it's default configuration it is more secure
than Firefox running with an adminstrator account. Firefox with a standard
user would be better yet. I have purposely tried to trash Vista from a
standard user account and haven't been able to do more than trash that
account. Spyware can be installed but you are often warned by UAC first and
so far I have been able to easily remove it manually when logged in to an
admin account. The spyware was not able to escape from the user account to
the system unless I repeatedly ignored UAC warnings. This may cahnge as the
spyware programmers play with Vista.

As for network security again that problem exists with all OS's. I don't see
that Vista is any more or any less secure than other OS's when communicating
on the network. The default is a compromise between security and ease of
use. If needed you can make it very secure with IPSec etc.. If you use
strong passwords, run as a standard user, and secure your servers it would
take a very determined and knowledgable hacker to get into your system. This
person could probably get into other OS's as well. It would take knowing a
password or sophisticated network sniffing with physical access. Ths can be
done with wireless regardless of what OS the workstations are running. If
you use wireless you also need to use encrypted communication on the network
(i.e. IPSec). If they can get into your physical network from the Internet
then the Internet gateway itself is not secure.

You are complaining about security but then disabling it. In Linux would you
run as root? Try Vista as a standard user. It is regrettable that Microsoft
doesn't setup a standard user on install.

It's an interesting discussion. If you have discovered some security flaws
that refute what I am saying please let me know.
 
Hi Kerry,

UNIX/Linux user privileges are quite different from those of Vista.
You don't need to run as super user or root on a routine basis because
it is a simple matter to change to root as required with entry of the
proper password. When you upgrade privileges with UNIX/NT to super user,
you are a real super user.
This isn't true with Vista. As has been discussed in detail on this
forum, giving a user administrative privileges is not the same as
carrying out operations as "Administrator".
UNIX/Linux user privileges generally function in a user friendly,
appropriate function. Vista privileges has some very quirky behavior. It
bothers me that a user with administrative privileges ( not
Administrator) can change permission on a directory from read to write
using Windows Explorer. The permission then automatically reverts to
read after exiting from Windows Explorer. Oddly enough, if you just
minimize Windows Explorer other programs can then write into the
"protected" directory until such time that Windows Explorer is exited.

Robbie
 
Beck said:
Thats something I wish to switch off - the security prompts everytime
I wish to change a setting. Would you know where that is please?
Click to expand...

Run as a standard user and it's less intrusive. If you must run as an
administrator you can turn it off in the control panel in the user
configuration, in msconfig, in the registry, and probably more places as
well.
 
For the most part, I am enjoying Vista beta 2. It is refreshing when it comes to finding files via the search features. Search is almost everywhere. Granted there are a few bugs, but that is to be expected being beta :). I honestly feel that with all the bug reports that are being sent in, RC1 will be even better.

It works great with Office 2007 beta 2. I haven't had any issues with running the software. Windows Sidebar is an awesome feature. I am sure glad that it is part of Vista.

I for 1 will be purchasing Vista when it is released next year.

Jason
 
Jason said:
For the most part, I am enjoying Vista beta 2. It is refreshing when it
comes to finding files via the search features. >Search is almost
everywhere. Granted there are a few bugs, but that is to be expected being
beta :). I honestly feel >that with all the bug reports that are being
sent in, RC1 will be even better.
It works great with Office 2007 beta 2. I haven't had any issues with
running the software. Windows Sidebar is an >awesome feature. I am sure
glad that it is part of Vista.
I for 1 will be purchasing Vista when it is released next year.
Click to expand...

I will buy it depending on the price. I am not rich so will definitely go
with an OEM version if there is one. If not then it will be an upgrade.
 
Robert Robinson said:
Hi Kerry,

UNIX/Linux user privileges are quite different from those of Vista.
You don't need to run as super user or root on a routine basis because it
is a simple matter to change to root as required with entry of the proper
password. When you upgrade privileges with UNIX/NT to super user, you are
a real super user.
This isn't true with Vista. As has been discussed in detail on this forum,
giving a user administrative privileges is not the same as carrying out
operations as "Administrator".
UNIX/Linux user privileges generally function in a user friendly,
appropriate function. Vista privileges has some very quirky behavior. It
bothers me that a user with administrative privileges ( not Administrator)
can change permission on a directory from read to write using Windows
Explorer. The permission then automatically reverts to read after exiting
from Windows Explorer. Oddly enough, if you just minimize Windows Explorer
other programs can then write into the "protected" directory until such
time that Windows Explorer is exited.

Robbie
Click to expand...

You are still talking about running Vista with administrator privileges.
Have you tried it as a standard user? It works very much like Linux. I am
doing all my testing as a standard user on the local computer while logged
on to an AD domain. I have not joined the user to the local administrators
group. On the domain the user only has domain user privileges. If you try to
do something that requires elevated privileges locally you are prompted for
a user name and password. Once you give the user name and password the task
runs with elevated privileges. This is the same behavior I see in Fedora FC5
which I have running on my laptop. It is similar to other distros I've
tried. The UAC prompt is noticeably less intrusive. I am easily able to do
my day to day computing without elevated privileges. I admit I am using
mostly Microsoft beta software which is designed for Vista. If and when
Vista replaces XP as the OS of choice I believe most software will work with
this model. Of course there are always companies like Intuit, Sage, and most
game developers that insist on elevated privileges all the time. Hopefully
Vista will wean them from this sloppy programming :-)

I do agree that running as an administrator account can be frustrating with
all the UAC prompts. I think Microsoft is over reacting to the hoopla about
weak security in XP. There are also some inconsistencies that need to be
worked out. Some areas of the hard drive are only accessible when logged in
as the actual Administrator account. You have mentioned another instance
where an account with administrator privileges differs from the
Administrator account. What happens if the Administrator account profile
gets corrupted? I haven't found a way to create an equivalent account. I
think Microsoft should change the default install to setup a standard
account, a second true Administrator account, all with passwords, and
default to the standard account.
 
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:26:16 -0700, "Kerry Brown"

snip
I do agree that running as an administrator account can be frustrating with
all the UAC prompts. I think Microsoft is over reacting to the hoopla about
weak security in XP. There are also some inconsistencies that need to be
worked out. Some areas of the hard drive are only accessible when logged in
as the actual Administrator account. You have mentioned another instance
where an account with administrator privileges differs from the
Administrator account. What happens if the Administrator account profile
gets corrupted? I haven't found a way to create an equivalent account. I
think Microsoft should change the default install to setup a standard
account, a second true Administrator account, all with passwords, and
default to the standard account.
Click to expand...

Yeah Kerry that would be a lot better, the current system is a bit of
a dogs' dinner.

Jonah
 
Black? Where are you seeing black? The Aero Theme is not black. Perhaps
you are having a video driver issue.
 
I love using the *Standard Account* in Windows Vista because if an operation
or task requires more privileges the UAC request me a password (of my other
administrator account) and so I'm able temporarily to run an application or
that task without any problems and all other tasks are still running as
Standard and so my system is safer.
The first Windows Vista account created in this beta2 is *not* a Standard
Account but it's an Administrator protected by UAC, so if you really want to
try a Standard Account you should create a new Standard Account by yourself
and always use it!
 
Back
Top