First Impressions of Vista Thread

T

thyshallsmite

Gawd
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
574
So figure everyone could post here on what they think of Vista having only used it for a short time.

Here is my impression:

So been playing around with Vista and after about an hour I switched back to XP.
Why? Well 1st off, it kinda hurt my eyes to look at it. I mean its pretty and all, but really it made my eyes strain to see all the icons and start menu and all that kinda of stuff, everything is in really small text and blended against the background. Also notice that I couldn’t download stuff to any where I wanted, which was kinda annoying. I also couldn’t figure out how to access application data so I could transfer over my stuff from XP (show hidden files anyone?). How about those pop ups every time you do something? I don’t want to be locked out of everything so you can make me click yes to something I already said do. I have a dual core system, most people will at the time of release; don’t lock me out of multi tasking windows! It also came across abit slow. I’ll be trying it again later today and see if I can get to the wondrous fairy crack Microsoft keeps talking about. Also, anyone figure out how to make the windows go “3d” I have yet to figure out how to make them do that sideward thing.
 
I've been playing w/ Vista since Sunday night and I must say that its pretty nice. I like the new look and some of the new features.

I dont like how sluggish the OS right now, but of course thats to be expected seeing since this is obviously still in BETA form.

the only thing I'm not liking right now is the fact that I have to change my display settings every time I turn my computer on because I use a laptop hooked up to my 24" LCD as an external display and for some reason Vista is making me change the settings every time.

oh well, thats my only gripe and like I said, the OS is still in BETA form so it isnt like I (or anyone else for that matter) can bitch or complain too much.
 
i've had it for 4 days now and after tweaking it is running almost as fast as xp pro did.
the onlyprob that i'm having is finding software that runs right on vista.
and the media player is a little tempermental.
window key+tab gives u 3D windows if ur video card supports it.
does anyone know of a good place to find software for vista??????
 
ozziegn said:
oh well, thats my only gripe and like I said, the OS is still in BETA form so it isnt like I (or anyone else for that matter) can bitch or complain too much.
Click to expand...

Just because its beta doesn't mean you can't have an impression of it. Sluggishness is to be expect, however they do need to do alot of work to get this done before they expect us to pay some 300$ for it. Gadgets are nice, but for those without a large desktop they are useless. The sreach has potential, but needs to actually work. They need ot put different themes in (black of dark grey is not friendly) also need to put a larger start button imo(thing to small, same with the text in the start) Also don't like that the program menu takes over the start menu.

This is beta, your supposed to gripe at all the things that are don't work and don't feel or look right, that is the whole purpose of a beta, so the developer can find and fix all the things wrong with the product.
 
OS is great so far well after you get it set so it works how you want it to

tobad i cant make any games run right one it oh well have to wait for a driver update a guess or some thing
 
Elios said:
OS is great so far well after you get it set so it works how you want it to

tobad i cant make any games run right one it oh well have to wait for a driver update a guess or some thing
Click to expand...

I've read alot of posts about games not running right. I installed BF2 and Oblivion on 64bit Vista and they both work right after patching. I was actually expecting the widely documented PB problem with BF2 but it didn't happen to me. Only real problem was the laggy first 10 seconds of BF2 is back for me now, I guess I'll have to get two more gigs or ram.
 
I couldnt even get AIM to install :( oh well other then that i wish it used less resources and like the other poster said about it being sluggish. A lot more hard drive thrashing it sounds like. Media player kept crashing when i put a dvd full screen in it, even gave me a BSOD LOL. and rebooted my pc.
 
thyshallsmite said:
So figure everyone could post here on what they think of Vista having only used it for a short time.

Here is my impression:

So been playing around with Vista and after about an hour I switched back to XP.
Why? Well 1st off, it kinda hurt my eyes to look at it. I mean its pretty and all, but really it made my eyes strain to see all the icons and start menu and all that kinda of stuff, everything is in really small text and blended against the background. Also notice that I couldn’t download stuff to any where I wanted, which was kinda annoying. I also couldn’t figure out how to access application data so I could transfer over my stuff from XP (show hidden files anyone?). How about those pop ups every time you do something? I don’t want to be locked out of everything so you can make me click yes to something I already said do. I have a dual core system, most people will at the time of release; don’t lock me out of multi tasking windows! It also came across abit slow. I’ll be trying it again later today and see if I can get to the wondrous fairy crack Microsoft keeps talking about. Also, anyone figure out how to make the windows go “3d” I have yet to figure out how to make them do that sideward thing.
Click to expand...

You can download stuff wherever you want, either click the "Browse Folders" button or type the path in the top address bar. Show hidden files is in the same place as it was in XP, most option locations haven't changed at all. To disable UAC and its popups go into user accounts(quickest way is to click the picture in the start menu) and click on "Change security settings" uncheck the UAC box and you're good to go. To make the windows go "3d" press WIN+TAB or CTRL+WIN+Tab

On my system Vista has been extremely responsive, to the point that its actually faster than using XP. The new layout of the start menu is a bit of a mixed bag, the one benefit is that it won't completely dominate your screen when you have alot of programs installed, this should be good especially for lower resolution screens.
 
funkyfish77 said:
does anyone know of a good place to find software for vista??????
Click to expand...

Sure, wait till all those programmers out there write software for a beta2 O/S - so your not going to see any "vista approved" software until it hits at least RTM 1.
 
squeezee said:
You can download stuff wherever you want, either click the "Browse Folders" .
Click to expand...
On mine when i click browse it won't show me any other places.
Show hidden files didn't appear when i went to folder options =/. I dunno like i said i'll be using it agian later today.

Also notice it takes awhile to shut down/ start up, anyone else notice that?
 
Okay, I've been playing with in in VMWare. Mostly because my bosses would kill me if I installed in as a primary OS on a production machine.

Here's two sets of screenies from the 32-bit install, and later from the 64-bit install.

http://charles.borner.us/Vista32/

http://charles.borner.us/Vista64/

My impressions so far. Okay, installing x86 under VMWare was a straightforward, but ugly experience. My screen resolution was limited, as you can see, to 640x480 and 4-bit (FOUR FREAKING LOUSY BITS) color. Also, it wouldn't recognize the network adapter right off. However, once I installed the VMWare Tools driver package, everything came out looking fine and the NIC picked right up.

x68 installed in just as straightfoward a manner, but it picked up the video and NIC right off the bat. The Windows+TAB window flip doesn't work for me however, because the VMWare video drivers aren't D3D accelerated. :mad:

The security settings are a bit annying, but nothing horrendously bad.

Also, quick observation between IE7 and Firefox.

Firefox and IE7 side-by-side

At least the way "I" use it, FF still has more available screen real-estate for page view than IE7. However, compared to default FF, IE7 has more.
 
i've been using it with office 2007 beta.. was able to connect to my work exchange server and everythign.. going to use it everyday at work, if i can't do something, i'll just reboot and go into XP... I like it, slow yes, but its pretty.. windows XP looks like 98 now :)
 
that reminds me i would like to use the old "classic" windows style with the Aero 2D extras BUT I CANT >.< grrrr i just want transpernt windows and the scrolling 3D windows
WHY! ; ;
 
if my eyeballs were diabetic i'd be dead. eye candy is nice, but its all fluff in the end. I want usablility.

I like things lean and mean....so the beta has a ways to go imho
 
true...

So far, WIN XP does everything for me, and its faster too.. So, other than vista being prettier, i have no need for it yet.....

To bad they removed the scripting from vista, that would have been cool.. No more spending hours setting up peoples machines.
 
I'm just now reading up on the whole "Vista Deployment" features.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/wi...0cb7-d44f-47f7-a10d-e23dd53bc3fa.mspx?pf=true

I found sysprep in c:\windows\system32\sysprep\sysprep.exe and ran it but it errored out. I think I need an answer file.

I'm only on the second page of the deployment guide at this point after finishing the Vista x32 installation.

I'm the only Desktop Engineer at my company so I will have the largest influence after evaluation to suggest when or if we migrate to Vista.
 
Well spent all last night using it after modifying the sercuity settings it got less annoying. It is still slow though (shut down/ start up take about 5mins or more). I dunno, it basically seems like windows just slapped a new interface on there and expect us to pay a couple 100. I wouldn't mind getting it for free, i would use it as my main OS if it was faster and free at release, but don't think i'm going to ever pay 100+ $ for it.
 
For a Beta it is pretty good. Little bit of a Memory Hog but I slimmed it down somewhat. Only issue I have is the annoying pop-up boxes everytime you want to do something Administratively. Also for some strange reason, and this is not Vista, but the Boot Manager does not activate USB to get my USB keyboard to work to select the OS I want. My USB Wireless Keyboard works great to get into my BIOS but not active once past the BIOS screen. I had to select XP as my first OS to boot so now I need to go get a standard PS2 keyboard so I can get back to Vista. Did not get a good chance to play a lot but enough to figure out there are too many steps for an Admin to get to the settings. I like the old fashined way not this new put it in a window and select every possible display setting in diferent links rather than tabs. Right click on the desktop and I get this new crap instead of a nice Properties box with nice tabs. I am sure there is a way to change it, or else I will just get used to it. Not made to administrate easily though. Not like 2K/XP. That and to set wireless up you need a wizard. I hate wizards!
 
Couple of querks. I left it to work in XP for a couple days, came back, and it forgot all my display settings. I also notice when using IE7 that when I click the "go back" arrow, 9x out of 10, I have to click it twice to actually go back to the previous page. The hour glass comes up, goes away and nothing happens. (Update: I see what's going on here, when I click the first time, I'm going through the adware, the second takes me to the page. Run your cursor over the back arrow and you'll see what I mean).

Also got a fair bit of disk thrashing yesterday, made the hard drive very loud.

No doubt, as I spend more time, I'll find more issues.
 
hagbard said:
Couple of querks. I left it to work in XP for a couple days, came back, and it forgot all my display settings. I also notice when using IE7 that when I click the "go back" arrow, 9x out of 10, I have to click it twice to actually go back to the previous page. The hour glass comes up, goes away and nothing happens. Also got a fair bit of disk thrashing yesterday, made the hard drive very loud.

No doubt, as I spend more time, I'll find more issues.
Click to expand...

I had to reboot just to get IE7 to open after I had just used it and closed it. It just kept failing to open, flash then close. Worked fine after the re-boot. Strange though. Slow on the HD access for file copying as well. Went to transfer abotu 6-7 GB from my XP drive over to the Vista drive and it literally took over an hour and a half. I have an SATA150 and an ATA133 drive. Normally they transfer nice and fast but Vista seems to have some issues. Probably just drivers as it is Beta. But still was slower than an old junker I have at work where it only took 2 hours to transfer 30GB from one drive to another and that is Windows 98 and ATA33!
 
Another quirk is the inability to run the Vista 64 install from within 32 Bit XP. Should have been able to do that since it is a fresh install and not upgrade that I selected anyhow. Maybe they will make some nice install routine to allow it someday.
 
and I thought I was the only one that was straining with the aero theme...
too many colors.. too many visual effects... i used to think xp luna was too much. Aero is like 10 times more

I went back to windows standard
 
My video cards don't work with vista. When I install the drivers and reboot I get a black screen, like my monitor is asleep or something. Apparantly, neither the drivers nor vista currently support SLi.

Hopefully that will be fixed shortly.
 
mctwin2kman said:
I had to reboot just to get IE7 to open after I had just used it and closed it. It just kept failing to open, flash then close. Worked fine after the re-boot. Strange though. Slow on the HD access for file copying as well. Went to transfer abotu 6-7 GB from my XP drive over to the Vista drive and it literally took over an hour and a half. I have an SATA150 and an ATA133 drive. Normally they transfer nice and fast but Vista seems to have some issues. Probably just drivers as it is Beta. But still was slower than an old junker I have at work where it only took 2 hours to transfer 30GB from one drive to another and that is Windows 98 and ATA33!
Click to expand...

yea, i noticed this too, hard drive access is extrmemly slow!!! maybe because the OS is using the page file too muc, who knows?
 
mjz_5 said:
yea, i noticed this too, hard drive access is extrmemly slow!!! maybe because the OS is using the page file too muc, who knows?
Click to expand...


yea for me when moving files from diffrent physical drives is fast but across partions on the same physcal drive is VERY slow so dont know whats up there
 
thyshallsmite said:
Also notice it takes awhile to shut down/ start up, anyone else notice that?
Click to expand...
\
Must be your system for me it dam well flies on either, starting up is faster then XP!!


running Intel 820D
2g od ddr2-667
74g Raptor
PCI Gf 440mx 64mb card

i am really impressed, since it is a beta that it starts and shuts down so quick.


I did notice the issue of deleting files from recycling bin, or moving a file, or sometimes opening My COmputer, then say C drive, it takes a while to list the directory.
 
well, it looks like I'm going to ditch Vista for now. I'm doing this because the OS overall runs a lot slower than XP which is something that I just cant get use to right now.

oh well, I'm sure MS will get all the wrinkles out soon.
 
MrGuvernment said:
\
Must be your system for me it dam well flies on either, starting up is faster then XP!!


running Intel 820D
2g od ddr2-667
74g Raptor
PCI Gf 440mx 64mb card

i am really impressed, since it is a beta that it starts and shuts down so quick.


I did notice the issue of deleting files from recycling bin, or moving a file, or sometimes opening My COmputer, then say C drive, it takes a while to list the directory.
Click to expand...

Startup is faster to the desktop than XP, but getting to the desktop and being able to use the PC are two diferent things. Takes forever to get the wireless and all up and running so you can actually do something. I do like the updated Solataire though!

I did get my boot manager and wireless USB keyboard to work together so I can now select either XP or Vista at boot. Once I get time to install Office and all I will test more. Only thing I notice now is of course no drivers at Microsoft as of yet for my wireless Keyboard/Mouse. Which is funny considering it is all Microsoft. The Intellitype Pro software does not recognize Vista as newer than 2K/XP so the install fails. Go figure, MS can not even get there own software to notice it is newer. So it pains me to surf the net in Vista cause the Scrolling is so damn jerky. Other than that it is nice, it will take time to get used to the convaluted way of going to change certain settings. I like one window with tabs not one windows with links that open the tabs for you and do not show the others. Too many steps. I want simple Administration and Setup not all this click here click there BS.
 
well my Logitech G15 software works perfict :D i actuly macroed crtl+windowskey+tab to G18 hehe i use it all the time now love it lol

just wish my games worked right ever thing else i can live with for now
 
i have the slow wireless issue on XP currently :(

once i am in i can use the system, my network card goes quick, i dont have wireless on it so i cant confirm that under vista.,
 
So far I think it looks pretty nice. The new Aero theme and the widgets are a straight rip-off/licensed from Object Desktop/Winblinds. I've used these for years so nothing new there.
Boot times are painfully slow......78 seconds to desktop.....another 20 or so before it's ready to do anything....this was with nothing else installed yet. XP loaded up with apps still only takes ~30sec to boot up.
It loves ram, the more you have the more it sucks up......average 30-35% ram use (out of 2 gigs).
Just a guess but I think the slow disk speed is from the indexing service, I'm going to try turning it off and see what happens. I don;t need to search my computer, I know right where everything is.....on C, D, or E drive :D....or in a stack of cd/dvds. EEK!
People with icon/font size trouble can easily fix this be rt click/personalize.....make things as big or small as you want...even custom sizes.
IE7 is another ripoff courtesy of Firefox.....imitation is the greatest flattery.
I'd like to see macromedia make a 64bit compatible flash player.....it just won't work for me in the 64bit ie7. I had issues installing the new nvidia gpu drivers. They hosed my display and lost the taskbar. ctrl/alt/del wouldn't let me shutdown. On reboot ntldr.exe was missing so I couldn't boot into anything. Had to unplug Vista drive, boot to xp, shut down and next reboot was fine.
I think alot of noobies/grandmas/pc illiterates are going to have a hard time with vista. All those "Admin credentials" pop-ups are gonna scare 100,000 old blue hairs a day. Maybe they'll come up with a "computer idiot" user account level to suppress those pop-ups.

All in all, not to bad. Still needs some optimizing and polish but it's got a lot of promise.
 
Just chiming in with my $.02...

I've touched on Vista since it was first announced meaning long long before the silly Vista name ever graced a memo in some Microsoftie's Outlook Inbox. Here's what I think:

I think Microsoft should stop concerning themselves so much with continuing the trend of the PlaySkool OS and concern themselves more with usability. I mean, the overwhelming majority of people that own PCs don't have 23" LCD monitors at 1920x1200 resolution - the fact that they're spending so much time making everything into some graphical representation or iconic template is just staggering and all that imagery takes up a lot of screen real estate. Vista at 1024x768 is a joke, and there are a considerable number of people running it at that resolution because that's the best their 15" LCD monitors can do.

I'm old skewl, I'll admit that. I prefer seeing my files, my documents, my pictures, my songs, and whatever else I have on my PC as the filenames and not some pretty true color image of whatever the iconic template/graphical representation is supposed to be showing me.

All that pretty PlaySkool graphical crap is just eating away at CPU cycles. But wait, you say, most PCs are idle what, 95% of the time unless the owner installed some idle-time utility like SETI@Home (useless for most all intents and purposes) or perhaps Folding@Home or something infinitely more useful (finding a cure for cancer, while being a novel idea, is impractical considering the mentality in the medical field is and always will be "it's more profitable to treat the disease than to cure it").

There was a report long ago when XP first came out that showed just how much that graphical PlaySkool style of OS GUI hurt performance. Suprisingly, the article was published in 2001 and it's still online at:

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.html

Some diehards will probably argue with the results of it, and while I myself have a heavily tweaked XP laptop (12.6 second boot time to the Desktop, about 78MB of RAM usage), XP simply isn't as fast as Win2K is in day to day operation, not by a longshot. Hell, even 2K3 is faster than XP for various reasons.

My point is that I wish Microsoft and some other operating system vendors would focus more on the code itself and making it usable and useful for most intents and purposes and stop focusing so much on making it pretty. I mean, just for making a joke, look at the style of computer interfaces used in the TV series "Star Trek: The Next Generation."

The writers and producers of that series talked with ergonomic experts, kinesiologists, physicians, theoretical physicists, scientists (some rocket ones too I bet), and a whole slew of artists and creative visionaries when it came to answering the question:

"What would computers look like and work like in the 24th century, or how can we dream they might accomplish tasks?"

What they ended up with are touch sensitive computer panels (still a dream but we're getting there) that could be retooled to any required task at a moment's notice. Geordi gets to the bridge and needs to control the antimatter-matter containment chamber? No problem: "Computer, transfer mixture chamber control to this console." Done. Simple.

Why can't computers today be that way? I mean, I understand that not everyone is connected to the Internet; that's the ultimate pipedream and it won't happen in our lifetimes (assuming the cutoff date is roughly 2050-ish or so, I'm 39 now). But I can't comprehend why someone can't just write the operating system I know someone can write:

Quick, fast, efficient, no muss, no fuss. Don't tell me Gentoo, or any Linux derivative because it's simply not happening. I've done some of the most complicated Linux installations I can imagine (and I'm a Windows person, admittedly), compiled them to maximize performance, and no Linux distro I've ever used on any hardware has ever come close to the responsiveness of the Windows GUI, bloated beast from Redmond that it's become. Weird how that works, I guess.

Now we end up with Vista and whatever else is going to appear in the coming years and decades. Vista is the first OS I've seen Microsoft build that literally requires you to buy or build an entirely new top-of-the-line computer to maximize all the "features" that the eggheads in Redmond think will give you the most enjoyable computing experience possible.

Yes, it's beta, that's a well known and well established fact. Considering that it could be another 6-12 months before Vista appears on OEM PCs and in boxes on store shelves, it can still change dramatically; heaven forbid it gets even more bloated.

I saw someone mention how fast it starts and how fast it shuts down. My question is: how many times a day do you need to restart your PC? How many times do you need to shut it down? Those features, while useful in some respects, do nothing for the relative usefulness of the OS itself. So you save a few seconds booting, or rebooting. That could be compared to driving 56 MPH on a highway that's got a 55 MPH speed limit and you'll get to work a few seconds faster. Either way, it's not practical nor very useful in the long run since, as mentioned above, the PC is typically idle 95% of the time anyway.

The sheer amount of services that fire up when Vista boots is mind boggling, and RAM hogging to boot (no pun intended). The failure of WinFS was just one item to kneecap Vista, there are many others I could go into but I'll let it go for now.

While my first impression was formed a long time ago before Vista was called Vista, it hasn't changed with Beta 2: it's still too big, too bloated, and the hardware requirements as they exist today aren't going to be enough to run this mother when it's finally done, whenever that may be.

My suggestion: start putting your pocket change into a jar and take it to a bank once a month, dumping it into as high a yield savings account as you can, sorta like the "Christmas Club" program banks used to have when I was a kid. Consider it your "Vista Club" in the hopes that when Vista is released, you'll be able to buy or build a whole new PC that can run Vista without breaking a sweat.

Myself? I'll be running XP for a long time to come unless someone decides to write that ST:TNG style OS that just works and gets the job done quickly, efficiently, and without the bloat. That would be a nice thing, wouldn't it?

bb
 
A couple more thoughts/questions.

I sent MS some feedback since they need all they can get to make vista better, and on the feedback page I found an interesting comment:
"If you encounter a question or problem using your pre-release version of Windows Longhorn please refer to the documentation you received with Longhorn to determine where to go to ask questions, share information, or exchange ideas with others."

Seems like they wrote that page quite some time ago and never got around to changing the name.

When you install Vista to a sata drive does it supply a driver automatically, or do you have to load one from a floppy? I know this question was brought up about a year ago when MS said they weren't going to support usb drives during windows setup which would force the continued use of the decades old, prehistoric, outdated, painfully slow floppy drive.
 
^^ i had to load the nforce 4 SATA drives - the same SATA controller probably on most mobo's out there these days.


but the great part is i put it on a CF card and a USB card reader and it worked!!! picked it up!!
 
Thats good to hear. Looks like someone was paying attention to our "death to the floppy drive...finally" thread last summer.

You can see from my sig how I feel about the floppy drive.
 
i like my floppy drive you have take it when you pry it from my cold dead hands
 
SpoogeMonkey said:
A couple more thoughts/questions.

I sent MS some feedback since they need all they can get to make vista better, and on the feedback page I found an interesting comment:
"If you encounter a question or problem using your pre-release version of Windows Longhorn please refer to the documentation you received with Longhorn to determine where to go to ask questions, share information, or exchange ideas with others."

Seems like they wrote that page quite some time ago and never got around to changing the name.

When you install Vista to a sata drive does it supply a driver automatically, or do you have to load one from a floppy? I know this question was brought up about a year ago when MS said they weren't going to support usb drives during windows setup which would force the continued use of the decades old, prehistoric, outdated, painfully slow floppy drive.
Click to expand...

Installed to a SATAII drive and worked perfectly. Actually the only part I had to install a driver for was my x1800xt.
 
MrGuvernment said:
well the good part now is a USB floppy would work as well :D
Click to expand...
INTERNAL floppy :p

ill have a floppy in my PC till
A. mobo makers stop putting the contorler on mobos
B. thay stop making them and i can on longer find a working one
C. im dead
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top