Vista - Is everyone happy with Vista?

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

"Beck" <beck@removephotoscene.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ujCVrKRlGHA.4100@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>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.
>

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

"Beck" <beck@removephotoscene.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ujCVrKRlGHA.4100@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>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 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 Robinson wrote:
> 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
Sorry about the slip of the tongue, it should read Windows Explorer not
Internet Explorer.
Robbie

Robert Robinson wrote:
> 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

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.

--
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Beck wrote:
> 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.

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
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Kerry Brown wrote:
> Robert Robinson wrote:
>
>>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
>
>
> 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.
>
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.

"Beck" <beck@removephotoscene.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ujCVrKRlGHA.4100@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>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.
>

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 07:23:37 -0400, Robert Robinson
<robbiex@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>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

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