Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ,----[ The misses: ]
> |
> | * Installation
Sounds like the author had some install issues. However, installation
under Vista is far superior that it was under XP. No longer do you
need to answer dialog questions halfway through the install. You just
answer a few up front, and then it installs the entire OS and
configures with no more questions.
Being a Beta, I'm not surprised that there are some machines that Vista
install will choke on. However, the move towards a more automated
install is very welcome.
I was pleasantly surprised when I left only to come back to a fully
installed machine with Vista up and running...
> |
> | * Performance
Performance is good if you have the memory installed to overcome
paging... the memory requirements of the Beta are quite high (around
800MB!) so most machines start paging even loading one application -
which affects performance tremendously.
I've got 2GB in my machine and performance is on par if not better in
some cases than with XP (and of course Linux which feels sluggish and
unpolished to me).
> |
> | * Search, Security Dialogs
Security dialogs are a *major* pain in Vista. MS knows this and is
working on this.
Thankfully the UAC can be turned off so you can go right back operating
like XP if you wish. No more security dialogs. And you can run as a
lower priviledged user a LOT easier. UAC is really if you are running
as an Administrator.
> |
> | * Memory Requirements
> |
Yes, they *are* very high in Vista Beta 2.
Let's look at the reasons:
1) It's a beta
2) The beta 2 is the *ultimate* version of Vista and has *everything*
and most services turned *on* - such as the media center UI, and a
whole bunch of other things that aren't obvious.
Once I turned off the things I wasn't using (and that aren't in XP),
the memory requirements dropped to about 500MB. Yes, still too much
memory use - but better than the 800MB out of the box (beta).
> `----
>
> http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=160400003&cid=RSSfeed_TechWeb
The Hits & Misses unedited and uncensored by Roy:
1) Hit: Sidebar & Gadgets
2) Miss: Installation
3) Hit: The Aero Glass GUI
4) Miss: Performance
5) Hit: Media Center-ization
6) Hit: WMP 11
7) Miss: Search, Security Dialogs
8) Hit: DRM
9) Hit: Flip 3D
10) Miss: Memory Requirements
One thing you didn't mention is that there have been two builds since
Beta 2 - and they are *much* better in polish & performance than Beta
2. Please see winsupersite for some quotes on that.
Roy, you really disappoint me. I thought you were actually trying to
get news across. But all you did was take *only* the negative points
and not the positive points which were the majority. Also, you left
out the 'tone' of the article which was clearly PRO Vista. For
example, the author of the article clearly states that he think Vista
is "dead on" in terms of where MS is going with Vista.
Anyways, none of this matters anyway.
I am using Vista beta 2 (not even the better releases) - and already it
is *way* beyond any Linux desktop distro I have seen. I'm not talking
just sort of beyond, but **way** beyond.
Once the people see this new release, there is not going to be *any*
hope of Linux becoming popular on the desktop.
The only way MS can screw up is if they charge too much (which is
entirely possible). But even in this case - I believe that people
would simply walk down to their friendly Apple store.
The Man with No Name
|
|
