My impression of Vista RC2

  • Thread starter Thread starter boe
  • Start date Start date
B

boe

My review of Vista 64 -



Before anyone goes ballistic about me reviewing something that isn't a final
release - let's be clear - it is a "release candidate 2" - not alpha, not
even beta - "RELEASE CANDIDATE TWO". And yes, I did use the 64 bit
drivers, not the 32. My video and sound card have both been available for
about 1 year so they haven't just arrived on the market.



That being said, I didn't expect it to be perfect but I remember beta
testing Windows CHICAGO and it worked like a dream compared to this.



Reasons I want to use Vista - supposed to be better for 64 bit processors -
give me a reason to use the power that is in my system. I'm looking forward
to DX10 games although I currently don't have a DX10 card - I'll probably
wait until April.



System config -

Intel Core 2 Duo 6700

2 GIG of RAM

ATI X1900XT

Creative Labs X-FI basic



Install issues -

Got stuck on first install (flashing cursor top right - had to start from
scratch - for some reason it worked on the second.



Hardware Issues -

Native R300 video drivers crashed incessantly

Didn't recognize sound card



Installed 64 bit drivers from ATI's web page - not much of an improvement -
still crashed in many Windows native programs - e.g. screen saver.



Installed X-FI drivers from Creative Labs web page - gave me about 20
messages about the drivers not being signed - sound card recognized but
unusable. - yellow exclamation





I was going to test a few games that people said were much slower in Windows
(such as FEAR with the features turned on) but didn't get a chance since it
kept crashing from the native programs for video - no need to waste time on
a game. Besides there was no sound so what was the point.



The install defaults are still ridiculous - I support over 1000 people and
give them the choice of what they want for a start menu - 98% prefer classic
and almost everything but the last 4 items selected, no grouping, no locked,
no hidden. Yet MS continues with this. I doubt that I'm alone since every
IT person I've ever met does the same thing. I frequently get calls from
people whose systems I've worked on when they go to a new company and ask
how to get it back to those settings because it takes too long to get to
things in the new and "improved" xp start menu.



After playing with it for about 20 minutes and constantly getting a notice
about the R300 recovering and it constantly going black on ever option I
tried, I figure I'll wait for SP1 of the final release before I test it
again.



I just took the time to fill out a survey on Office 2007 and it was 20 pages
about the stupid ribbons - not what features don't work or what features are
still missing. I'd fill out a survey about Vista but I'm sure it would be
20 pages about the screen backgrounds or the icon for the start menu.
 
OH -

Flash didn't work (among other things) on install so I installed it - it
acted as if it wasn't working until I finally rebooted - turns out you need
to reboot for just about anything I tried to work - reminds me of Windows
3.1



Browsing the web was interesting - one minute a web page would load the next
I would get a message about not being able to load the web page, check
connectivity - so I'd go to a new web page - different site and it would
load without issue.
 
X-fi drivers are a pain. people have been asking creative to sort them out
for months now (not many people were that happy with their XP drivers).

During bootup, press F8 and select

Disable Driver Signature Enforcement

You have to do this every bootup in order to have sound.

With regards to installing flash, I had to run firefox as administrator to
get flash installed.
 
let this post stand as proof to what i have been ranting about since day 1.
AND the horrible ribbon too!
 
Stop blaming Microsoft for lack of drivers.

Send email to the various hardware manufacturers that you currently use and
ask about Beta or RC drivers.

I know my ATI card has em, and it works fine under Vista. My Xi-Fi, while
from July, are working fine, and all my other hardware with the exception of
my Blackberries work great under XP.


Bill F.
 
You do realize "chicago" was NT5 which I was part of and it was no where
that great at this point in time either. No drivers to speak of and as many
point out that is not MS problem. If only I had a dollar for every "non MS
hardware driver" that hosed my system I could retire. Blues Clues Implant
#1: MS don't write the drivers, the hardware maker does.... it's up to them.
 
Wow what a PITA - thanks. I got flash to work on IE but even for non flash
sites IE was unreliable - sometimes they'd load then you try to go back to
the same page that loaded the last time you booted and it won't.

I'm stunned they are calling this a RC2 - in my opininion it isn't a RC1 -
it might be beta 1 worthy.
 
I realize that chicago recognized my SB sound card and my nvidia or matrox
video cards without issue. I also realize it allowed me to browse the web
without issue- OH, I forgot according to Bill Gates the internet would never
take off so I guess they didn't bother doing much testing with that in
Vista. And Chicago was BETA when I tested it - NOT a Release Candidate - so
yes, in my opinion it did work much better than this RC. I realize they are
different OSs but this is such a core function I would expect it to work
reliably.
 
OK, we have to make up our mind. People who poo poo Macs for being able
to release a new OS very quickly say - oh that is because they don't have to
test it with thousands of types of hardware. If the responsibility is
strictly the vendor - e.g. Creative labs, than MS should be able to release
OSs just as fast as Linux or OSX. If MS doesn't bother to test with ATI or
creative labs new equipment why bother. Should we ASSume that people will
be running Vista on Pentium 3's using Sound blaster 16s? Vista should work
with any equipment that from the top 3 vendors of their category that came
out over 6 months ago - e.g. ati, nvidia and umm - have no idea who is
number 3.
 
My review of Vista 64 -



Before anyone goes ballistic about me reviewing something that isn't a final
release - let's be clear - it is a "release candidate 2" - not alpha, not
even beta - "RELEASE CANDIDATE TWO". And yes, I did use the 64 bit
drivers, not the 32. My video and sound card have both been available for
about 1 year so they haven't just arrived on the market.



That being said, I didn't expect it to be perfect but I remember beta
testing Windows CHICAGO and it worked like a dream compared to this.



Reasons I want to use Vista - supposed to be better for 64 bit processors -
give me a reason to use the power that is in my system. I'm looking forward
to DX10 games although I currently don't have a DX10 card - I'll probably
wait until April.



System config -

Intel Core 2 Duo 6700

2 GIG of RAM

ATI X1900XT

Creative Labs X-FI basic



Install issues -

Got stuck on first install (flashing cursor top right - had to start from
scratch - for some reason it worked on the second.



Hardware Issues -

Native R300 video drivers crashed incessantly

Didn't recognize sound card



Installed 64 bit drivers from ATI's web page - not much of an improvement -
still crashed in many Windows native programs - e.g. screen saver.



Installed X-FI drivers from Creative Labs web page - gave me about 20
messages about the drivers not being signed - sound card recognized but
unusable. - yellow exclamation





I was going to test a few games that people said were much slower in Windows
(such as FEAR with the features turned on) but didn't get a chance since it
kept crashing from the native programs for video - no need to waste time on
a game. Besides there was no sound so what was the point.



The install defaults are still ridiculous - I support over 1000 people and
give them the choice of what they want for a start menu - 98% prefer classic
and almost everything but the last 4 items selected, no grouping, no locked,
no hidden. Yet MS continues with this. I doubt that I'm alone since every
IT person I've ever met does the same thing. I frequently get calls from
people whose systems I've worked on when they go to a new company and ask
how to get it back to those settings because it takes too long to get to
things in the new and "improved" xp start menu.



After playing with it for about 20 minutes and constantly getting a notice
about the R300 recovering and it constantly going black on ever option I
tried, I figure I'll wait for SP1 of the final release before I test it
again.



I just took the time to fill out a survey on Office 2007 and it was 20 pages
about the stupid ribbons - not what features don't work or what features are
still missing. I'd fill out a survey about Vista but I'm sure it would be
20 pages about the screen backgrounds or the icon for the start menu.
Click to expand...

RC2 seems to be much cleaner, and more stable than RC1 (even the last
build, 5728).

However, I do have something negative to say about it:

It seems not being able to multi-task very well.
I have an Intel iMac 17", w/1.86mHZ Duo-Core Processor, with 2GB
memory, and a 300GB SATA-2 HD, and its' still sluggish when more than
one application is running.

Anyway, thats' my take so far.
Otherwise, it's really looking good.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread and article.
==========================================================
 
Ok first off.

Apple took many years to release MacOS X. If you care to review your history
it was Copland that nearly sunk Apple as a whole. It got so bad that they
had to buy another OS and then make it work with the current Mac software,
as well as force everyone to migrate to it, both hardware and software wise.
When 10.0 was in pre-release stages Apple promised an awful lot, and it
wasn't delivered in all honestly to 10.2, which was a PAY FOR upgrade.
Meaning in order to get what Apple promised you were going to get in 10.0
cost you almost $260 (129 a pop for 10.0 and 10.2).


The reason why Microsoft is REQUIRED to take time releasing an OS is:
1.) Tonnes of third party support needed, yes its important. Not everyone is
running ATI, SoundBlaster on an Intel based motherboard. MS cannot force 3rd
party hardware vendors to do anything.
2.) MS tests what they are given and those that pass are allowed to use the
Certified for Vista tags.
3.) Vista WILL work with any equipement IF the hardware manufacturer writes
drivers for em. Again, it is NOT Microsoft's responsiblity to write drivers.

ATI has been supplying drivers to Microsoft for Vista since the first few
builds rolled out. In fact I'm writing this on a PC with an ATI video card
using Microsoft's generic ATI drivers as supplied by ATI.
My sound card is a Creative Labs Xi-Fi and I downloaded Vista drivers (beta)
right from Creative Labs's web side

Both ATI and Nvidia offer beta drivers for Windows Vista.

Microsoft is supplying something like 38 THOUSAND drivers from the OOB
experience and via Windows Update.

And last but not least, keep in mind, this is still pre-release software.

Bill F.
 
Chee-ka-go was Win95.

Peter M said:
You do realize "chicago" was NT5 which I was part of and it was no where
that great at this point in time either. No drivers to speak of and as
many point out that is not MS problem. If only I had a dollar for every
"non MS hardware driver" that hosed my system I could retire. Blues Clues
Implant #1: MS don't write the drivers, the hardware maker does.... it's
up to them.
Click to expand...
 
boe said:
OH -

Flash didn't work (among other things) on install so I installed it - it
acted as if it wasn't working until I finally rebooted
Click to expand...

I've installed Flash9 for IE7 using a Standard account and it works fine.
 
OK, I've installed OSX on many systems - and it worked fine on the G4s so I
didn't have to migrate the hardware. Any more than you have to migrate
your hardware to vista but there are some minimum requirements. And MAC has
been popping out OSX 10.1, 2 ,3... on a regular basis. OH - and buying
another companies OS - soo much different than MS copying other companies
OS - and getting lawsuits for the parts they copy too freely. HMMMM -
promising a lot and then not offering it - you mean like a new drive format
than NTFS, or better search technology or DX10 or...
Again we are getting back to the point other manufacturers are responsible
for writing the drivers so MS should be able to release OS's faster as they
don't have to test on tons of platforms.

I'm pretty sure I started my review with stating it was not the final
release.

Just to be clear - I'm not a MAC or Linux fanboy but I am extremely
dissappointed in MS as of late. I'm not saying all their previous
creations were perfect by this stage but there has been considerably less
innovation out of MS the last few years in my opinion. WM5 AKU2 including
WMP10 for WM, VC 1.5 for WM, Office 2007, Vista RC2 - all very unpolished, a
lack of attempts to find out what people who have been using PCs for years
want. Instead they are concentrating on what people who've never used
computers would like - frankly the ideas of 1-3 year olds and 75 plus year
olds isn't going to improve their products in my opinion. I think it is
time they ask people who aren't drinking enfamil or ensure as a meal what
their products need to move forward. OOHH a ribbon so my menu opens
sideways vs up and down - oh yes, this is SOOO much better. No need to
concentrate on all the flaws/gaps in your system any more this ribbon is as
good as a shiny set of keys to distract me.
 
Sure you can install it on many systems, but you don't get all of the
features, hrm, just like Vista, go figure.

One, its Mac not MAC, MAC is sub layer is the part of the OSI network model
data link layer that determines who is allowed to access the physical media
at any one time. It acts as an interface between the Logical Link Control
sub layer and the network's physical layer.

Sure, Apple has been releasing 10.1, .2, .3 and .4 (and soon .5), every year
or so, and has been charging you for the upgrade ($129 if I remember
correctly). So for more or less 4 years you have been paying Apple for
relatively minor updates to MacOS X...

If you wanna talk about copying features, ask Xerox about the OS Apple
"borrowed" from them....


Bill F.
 
Yes, Apple did copy features of the $9000 xerox - funny thing though they
brought it to a price users could afford. Yeah - I can see the similarity -
Bill copies OSX and then sells it for about 1/10th the price - oh wait,
that's wrong... Of course Apple hasn't had xerox to copy for the last 25
years (guess as to date). So did MS copy apple one time only?

As for the price, I'm not sure - I think it is about $65 but I'm no mac
expert.
 
Back
Top