Vista is so bleh!

Am I the only one who has no excitement for Vista?
I've used Windows all my life, have had very few problems with it, never tried out Macs but I think their pretty neat especially with the Boot Camp dealio.

Vista to me looks a lot like XP 1.5, its been five years since XP came out but Vista doesn't seem to bring anything revolutionary at all after all these years.
Even the Aero Glass interface looks really boring and bland to me.

I dunno if XP to me is getting old now, I mean 5 years of using this operating system is a long time so I will have to migrate to Vista eventually but it doesn't seem to be great at all, it seems really ho-hum to me. OSX looks in several ways to be better than Vista and is just as old as XP!

Oh no, I'm slowly converting towards Macs!?

XP still so far has been the best OS I have ever used. Wonder how long people will keep using it before migrating to Vista? My excitement for it right now is 0.

 

Most of the improvements are under the hood. I'm going to guess that further visual changes are pending the post-Vista era. However, some of the GUI changes (revamped start bar, games explorer, virtual search folders) are actually going to be useful to me. And yes, I love the Chess game!

I still think I'm going to wait till SP1 to make Vista my main OS, but if I don't I'll just dual boot XP/Vista.

 

Join the club, rahul. I really don't like the DRM infection on Vista, nor the customer abuse they're trying to foist on us, the implicit declaration that everyone that has their software is a criminal, or might be, or might think about being one.

I'll use Linux/Beryl for my nifty graphical effects, next generation performance and features, thank you very little. I'm only using Windows because of a few games, and XP will work fine for those.

 

I like Vista!!! Everybody said the same negative things about XP, then they had no more BSOD's and it changed peoples minds quickly.

It's not the Aero or design that Wows me the most. It the security, the Sync Center, and alot of minor stuff that adds up, etc: etc. Even the Sidebar wigdets are better and almost non-buggy compared to Yahoo's widgets.

I also see Vista as Killing the need for alot of third party apps, like the Snipping Tool, BitLocker Drive Ecryption, Win DVD Maker (I can finally make a .wmv file into a DVD without converting), and Alot of other stuff. < Forgive my lazyness.

Vista also runs Faster & smoother than XP...IMO I'm talking about RC2, cus RC1 sucks!!!


And YES gaming is Good on Vista, and YES my battery life is about the same on Vista as on XP using Aero.

And NO, I'm not a Vista Fanboy ....I just give respect when it's due.

I didn't even expect to keep Vista on because of prejudgment, I was going to load Ubuntu back on. But I easily change my mind and kept Vista.

 

Gaming on is slower in Vista than compared to XP. Turns out that when Microsoft announced how the GUI would switch off once it starts rendering the game doesn't work quite the way it was stated. Since the GUI interface now is rendered from the gpu, it must always remain rendered even when its not in use. Check out the article @ TR if you don't believe me

 

I'm in this camp. I think Night makes some good points. There are some security improvements under the ood. But MS is also locking things down, per Pita's post.

I will probably stick with XP up until the point where it's an absolute necessity to have Vista (or whatever's after Vista). I stuck with Win 98 until they came out with XP.

Right now, though, XP works very well and it's very stable. Unless there's some major reason to upgrade (like the still-missing new file system), I really don't see the reason. The graphical interface junk means nothing to me - I want an OS that works and is stable. Period.

I feel the same with the new MS Office suite with the "ribbons" and other crap. There's no real functionality being added. Just MS trying to make the interface prettier and locking things down. I have my toolbars, macros, templates, etc. set up. I don't want to lose them because of some enforced new vision. MS really seems to be on the road of less and less end-user control. And more and more what MS thinks we need/should have.

 

Well maybe if your running it on high settings.

I tested almost every MAJOR game out now on Vista at default settings and it ran the same as if I was on XP.

Why would I care about the Tech point of view, if I can't notice the difference?

 

Vista gaming will be 10 to 15 percent slower than XP

 

I tested FEAR and it ran perfect for me under default settings.

Like I said , Why would I care about the Tech point of view, if I can't notice the difference?

DOOM 3 which was the last game I played on Vista, ran without no lag at all.


I careless about the fps as long as it doesn't slow enough for me to notice.

No text can convince me over what I experienced.

 

Well... um... XP looked a lot like 2000.... which looked a lot like 98... which looked a lot like 95.

A lot of the improvements are under the hood.

Now more importantly, for those who have bene using RC2, do you feel that Vista will be ready to launch in Q1?

 

Good for you, I'll keep convincing everyone else -_-

 

I think it might be alot of driver problems, with so many differ hardware out now. My bluetooth Dongle from kensington, & my orbi cam from acer (built in cam on top) always hangs. I have a feelings that alot of drivers of non-major products may not play well with Vista yet.

Otherwise RC2 has everything I need, now that I found the Device Sync Center Download (replacement for activesync)


If the fix before Q1 release then it's a winner. It might get pushed back.

 

.....................

 

Like what? The newly written (read, untested and unsecure) network stack? The filesystem they gave up on? Or the DRM infection?
My problem with Vista is that there doesn't seem to be many improvements under the hood. It seems that most of the improvements are in prettier, sparklier, shinier interface, and that's it. And the under the hood improvements that do exist seem to be improvements for the music and movie industry, and a major step back for the rest of us.

Yes, DirectX 10 looks nice, and is one of the reasons I might upgrade. And some of their security improvements are long overdue. But that's about it.

 

DX10 is a forced upgrade, you won't get it with XP

 

Isn't there a version of directx10 for xp called 9L or something?

 

No, DX10 will not be coming to WinXP ever. The DX9L thingy is DX9 runtime for Vista, but some hacks believed it was DX10 for XP.

 

IMO, having used Vista for a while, I dont exactly see anything which is extraodinary. The features and the feel of Vista is much better than XP but it is more of an evolution rather than any drastic revolution. I will probably buy Vista sometime next year but I dont see it as a must have OS. I would say if a person is happy with XP then continue with it as long as you can and then probably upgrade to Vista.

 

Agrees, It's not like a whole other OS. But it's a Great improvement in the Windows Upgrade Era.

But I do have to say that alot of negative things I hear about Vista is untrue at my end, using RC2

 

Pretty much sums up my feelings on Vista. However I think the per-application volume control is a long overdue feature which is awesome in theory. They should release it as an update to XP.

 

i'll probably switch to vista but not right when it comes out i'll probably use xp for maybe a yr or two more all depends.

 

well, i've been playing with vista since day one and must admit that MS has so far surprised me with each version update

as it stands with build5840, it is quite an improvement over RC2, which is a big leap over RC1. I personally think that vista will be ready, only hold-back is vendors hardware drivers.

i agree with LIVEFRMNYC, ur personal experience on any system is what it counts, & so far, MS is keeping up its performance promises. I've read many blogs/post out there from skeptics of vista at the start and then see them converting slowly to more of acceptance, not outright, but with a much more "would DEFINITIVELY give it a try" attitude

cheers ...

 

...the problem is "why?"

Vista improvements:
DX10
Aero (graphical features ripped off from every other system ahead of it, OSX, Linux)
WinFS, the database file system... wait, no, they dropped that feature
Better shell... wait, monad was dropped too
EFI support... wait, nope. Still only OSX and Linux support that.
PC to PC syncing... oops. That's been put on hold, too.


Vista downsides:
It attempts to take any and all media usage rights away from you that it possibly can
Costs a lot, much more than XP for an equivalent version
New network stack, unproven/unknown reliability and stability, though likely bad given track record
Blocks 3rd party tools from helping secure Windows. Microsoft has proven they can't write a secure OS time and again, and now they're blocking the tools that made it at least usable.

I just can't see any good reason to upgrade to Vista. The only people championing it just don't seem to know what else is out there, and how much better it could be.

 

I'm waiting for SP1 as well. Don't see the need to upgrade yet. MCE is working just fine for me, and if I want the same features in vista, I'll have to get premium (which is going to cost me a bit more). My friend let me fool around on his vista beta system for a while. Well....it looks nice but the new features it provides don't seem to be as useful as I had hoped. Of course, MS will add new features in its Final release. Until then, I'll be using XP as my main OS, no dual booting for me at the moment.

 

I'll wait until a few clever programmers manage to propagate a quick easy way of removing all the DRM crap.

 

Other than hdcp, which only affects HD content, what other form of drm is mandatory?

 

i think once everything gets worked out maybe in a yr or two vista will be just as good as xp or better.

 

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/stream/output_protect.mspx

 

At the end of the day, how does that really affect the average consumer viewing non drm content? If you support drm by buying stuff with it, you deserve whatever restrictions are placed on you.

 

I don't understand this topic.. the dislike of Vista comes from how un-evolutionary it is?

What Vista is is just a friendlier, easier to use version to XP, and it looks better too. It is just simply improving on XP. What were you expecting? An OS is going to be an OS, nothing more, nothing less. They are just streamlining it and making it better so it easier for the user to use.

This will probably happen forever until a new type of computer is invented, like a virtual reality thing or whatever. New features will still come out that enhance the user experience, but nothing so revolutionary will come out that you just gasp in awe at its greatness.

The new mac OS that will come will probably just improve, not be completely different and awesome and new. Just improved.

 

I think people are more complaining about the fact that Microsoft has had almost 6 years to make this thing and the only thing they have to show for all that time is a pretty(ish) skin.

I won't be upgrading to Vista, though if I'm forced to, I certainly won't bother paying for it. Pitabred is right on all counts. I too only have XP for my games.

 

Yeah but how many music stores sell music without DRM?

 

I've somewhat refused Vista upgrade as well unless I'm dead set on getting a DX10 capable notebook or desktop. I'm considering running a Linux kernal OS with WinXP in dual boot so I can play games yet have a better, more efficient OS for practicality.

 

Well, it would be one thing if they weren't selling the XP pro equivelant of Vista for like, what? $300?
Most of the upgrades look okay, but not worth paying a heck of a lot of a new OS. I could see paying... oh say $100 for some of the upgrades. But what they want to charge? Hell no.
I think I'll keep to XP on my desktop, OSX on my laptop and Linux on my server
Maybe when Vista SP1 comes out I'll grab it... but looks like I won't get it in the spring.

 

"looks better" is completely subjective. I think Vista is hideous (i hate 3d interfaces, it's overkill), I vastly prefer my themed xp look and I know I'm not the only person to feel that way.

 

Ok, whats this DRM really about?

Because I been able to rip actual legal DVD's and clone them to a blank DVD.
I also been able to play illegal torrent movie downloads.
I been able to play non-copyright files and copyright files, was able to record both types to a Music cd.

I did however come across a DRM warining when I tried to edit a DVDRIP, meaning cut parts or add effects. It told me to download something. I just left it alone, tried again and five times later I was able to edit without the recommended DRM warning download.

I was able to do anything with rip cd music files and non copyright Mp3's.


So can somebody break it down on what DRM is about. Please no Web Links.
In Plain English.

Is it because RC2 is only BETA so far? Will there be a problem with the final release?

Oh the dvdrip I tried to edit was Syriana. Just to test a app.

 

Moot point, unless you're trying to say you have some uncontrollable need to buy music from online stores.

Are you willing to pay a few hundred dollars for pretty much a bunch of software ugrades? Now if it comes with a new computer...

 

And I thought I was the only one thinking this. Maybe the people complaining about drm leave their comments vague for a reason.

 

Digital rights management is digital technology used to control the distribution of copyright protected material (music, video, text). The ideal balance would be the end user's unfettered legal use of the music vs. the artists/agents/etc. receiving their fair share of royalties.

There are many interpretations (not to mention feelings) about the whole thing. The definitions, the categories of fair use, the limited methods of collecting royalties, and how end-users feel about DRM are all very heated topics.

 

But how does DRM prevent anything?

Does it block or corupt anything etc: etc:?

To me DRM is just another thing to bypass or codec/patch to download.

 

I think the confusion is over how much drm is in Vista, what does it mean to the user.

Comments like "DRM infection" and "It attempts to take any and all media usage rights away from you that it possibly can" are nothing more then speculation as there has been no references to anything definitive on how the implementation of DRM will affect the average customer, yet are thrown around as if they're fact.

 

Agreed, but someone asked for a neutral definition of DRM, but since I don't know what MS actually has in mind with Vista I could not address that.

And it seems useless to try. A while ago, everyone was up in arms because Vista could only be transferred to one other computer. MS has changed that (mainly due to consumer response to that limitation). So, who knows what the embedded DRM will be with the final consumer release.

 

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/390 One example: He bought the Complete New Yorker DVD set. The DRM required him to install and use their crippled viewer, and prevented him from copying the DVDs to his hard drive so he could search them in a reasonable fashion, instead required constant disc swapping while searching through the stuff. Also disabled copy/paste, even though as an educator he has the right to use the stuff as part of a lecture etc.

There is a decent chance I will never go to Vista. Might be time to start learning some type of Linux/BSD/etc.

 

Hey, the professor in the article above goes to my school!

 

But that depends on the product. I remember when Sony did something like that with their music CD's but there was a huge uproar about cd players & cd-roms on their pc not being compatible. There is also too many ways to bypass it on a PC. So I don't think many vendors would go to the Extreme to cripple use of their products because that will cut sales.

 

DRM is a failure. I have an e-book I bought from Audible. I paid for it. I can't use it anymore since it had been authorized on too many computers. I change computers like pop stars change clothes and this is my reward for playing by the rules?

This is the same reason I won't use iTunes music store. I get a compressed file, and one day, I will lose access to it.

I know I probably could contact Audible, and yada ya, but, screw it. I just leave it as a reminder.