|
From:Microsoft , Microsoft Software ,
|
See Product Page
|
User Rating: Amazon Sales Rank:#125 |
| | Page: << 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 >> |
52 of 61 customers found the following review helpful:
 Windows ME Revisited?, 2008-03-28
Let's get one thing straight right off the bat- I'm not a Microsoft hater. In fact, I've been very satisfied with XP from the start, and still am despite having had experience with other operating systems which are probably more advanced and streamlined. However, with the release of Vista I can't help but feel that this product is another 'interim OS' - a la Windows 98/98 Second Edition or Windows ME - that Microsoft put out for several reasons: 1) the fact that they haven't introduced a new OS in a long time, thus tempting users to look to other alternatives in search of new features. 2) as support for the fact that Windows is still their major cash cow 3) that Apple and Linux are finally starting to seriously threaten the OS stranglehold that Microsoft has held for so many years.
On point one, the last and- most would say- best OS Microsoft has released is Windows XP. Despite the fact that it's starting to show its age, I believe XP is a superior operating system to Vista for several reasons to be discussed later in detail. Nevertheless, it's been a good 7 years since XP was released, which is an a very long time in the software industry.
Point two is reinforced by the acknowledged fact that another Windows OS is already in development and is due out relatively soon (within the next 2-3 years) and the fact that most Vista sales are made from OEM distributors with the price included in the sticker cost. In many cases, end users have no choice at all for their operating system- you either get it with Vista, or you don't at all. Additionally, the retail package cost of the OS is unusually high- especially for the 'Ultimate' version which adds a few extra security and media features.
Point three is somewhat speculative, but there is some evidence pointing to its truth. The recent change of Mac hardware from the unique Motorola architecture to Intel-based might have riled some hardcore Apple fans, but it was a master-stroke from the business perspective. Now Mac users can run Windows in native mode while also benefiting from the superior Mac OS (still unavailable on non-Apple machines) and thus be able to break the 'gaming block' that Macs have been hobbled with previously. As to the Mac OS's general superiority, there really has never been any doubt- one merely has to see how much Vista attempts to mimic it to find proof of that. On the Linux front, it's really difficult to argue with free- and Linux is steadily improving both in terms of user-friendliness and capability. It has advanced to the point now that one no longer needs any understanding of the command line to use it, and most software- including many games- can be run on Linux.
Let's get down to examining the improvements from XP home to Vista home edition, which is what most people that would pay for upgrades are looking for. Bear in mind I haven't examined an enterprise edition and don't particularly care about business applications of Vista, since I still use XP Pro at work and have no intention of changing that.
Vista's user interface offers a new look and feel, which in anything but the lowest cost version is much more attractive than XP. It has translucent windows, animation effects, and new UI features including the 'Flip' in Premium edition which is a more visual approach to the old alt-tab interface used to switch between active applications and windows. There are also Windows Gadgets, which are small desktop apps, and a Sidebar that can contain Gadgets for quick use. Additionally, dialogs and windows- especially wizards- are standardized and more consistent in look and feel than in previous Windows versions. For pure Windows users, these will all be excitingly new features. However, they aren't actually new- Mac OS X has had all of these features in place for three or more years. This isn't in itself a bad thing, as these are generally good features. The only problem is they aren't implemented very well. Take the example of the translucent windows: put two windows side by side and they look very similar- at a glance it's very hard to tell which one is the active (or 'topmost') window- the only difference is a white line going around the border of the active one. In XP, the windows didn't look nearly as pretty but at least you never had any doubt which one was active. Additionally, the new look and feel comes at a rather punishing cost- the system requirements for Vista increase dramatically if these features are all enabled, and it's highly questionable whether a machine meeting the minimum requirements will be able to run Vista at anything approaching acceptable speed- let alone applications running ON Vista. This means that machines that are 3 or more years old should definitely not be upgraded to Vista, as they will be reduced to snail's pace. If you prefer, you can run Vista with the classic XP layout and look and feel, which makes it look very much like XP and has much better performance on slower machines. However, if you do this it begs the question- what's the point, then? You're essentially back to XP with some marginally useful new functionality, and a few hundred dollars out.
Security features are one of the main selling points of Vista. When you install any software that alters the system- including any and all software drivers and almost any serious applications- you will encounter at least one security popup. You have to explicitly click the Allow/Continue button to get it to proceed. There is no 'Always allow' option, so if you see the dialog once, you will see it again if you do the same thing. Theoretically, this is a great idea- it means a user can't do anything dangerous without seeing a warning. The problem is the warnings are often unclear, and a user won't know whether it's a real threat or not, and whenever one shows up they have to stop whatever they're doing and consider it (or not). Additionally these don't just show up during installations- this security also fires popup warnings whenever applications- including web apps- do anything that Windows construes as 'suspicious,' which is nigh on everything. Example: you plug in an external hard drive. Security warning; click continue. You browse to it and launch an installation batch file. Warning; click continue. The program asks you to register, and sends you to a site that has cookies. Warning; click continue. Within about 10 minutes of using Vista, I had seen more of these than I have on my Mac in 2 months, and that with relatively frequent OS updates too. And no, being an administrator doesn't do a thing in this regard, since Vista's security treats administrators as regular users (huh? exactly...) This is bad for two major reasons that are related: it's so annoying it'll make you spit and holler at the screen, and as a result it (ironically) doesn't do what it was meant to do- which is to stop bad stuff like viruses from taking the whole PC down. Users will get so used to just dismissing the popups that when a REAL threat appears, they will likely just dismiss it out of hand. You can save yourself the trouble and disable User Account Control, but then you're essentially back to XP. Once again, this leads us to that question- what's the point in upgrading then?
Vista includes new versions of Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player, as well as some additional apps for recording movies and (in Ultimate) backing up data. In my opinion these bundled Windows programs have never been better than third party apps- and since I don't have a great deal of experience using them I'll leave others to review them. Perhaps the most important new package Vista introduces is DirectX 10. In my admittedly biased gamer's mind, this is the only Vista feature even worth examining if you're considering upgrading. Windows has always been the OS of choice for gamers, and the fact that XP doesn't support (and never will according to Microsoft, though technically there isn't any reason it can't) the new version of DirectX means that gamers will probably be forced to upgrade eventually. For now, a handful of titles support DirectX 10 in addition to 9, though these are very few at this moment and there are still none that support only version 10. Some of these include Crysis, Company of Heroes, and World in Conflict- to name a few. As is to be expected, version 10 adds a lot of improvements to graphical detail and image quality, and games that take advantage of these features look noticeably better. However, due to the fact that there simply aren't many available yet, it's debatable whether it's worth upgrading to Vista just to do this. It will likely be some years yet before the first DirectX 10-only games appear, so there is certainly no compelling need to upgrade immediately if you just want to play. In fact, upgrading for the sake of gaming is not without risk- and on that note...
Let's talk about software compatibility. Presumably, Vista is backwards compatible with anything that could run on XP. Realistically, it's anyone's guess what will work. Straight up, you can expect none of the drivers you use under XP to work with Vista. In fact, many drivers written FOR Vista don't work, or have very serious technical issues that include such nastiness as random blue screens of death and other unsavory results. I don't know whether this is a result of poor third party support or just the fact that Vista is so new, but no working drivers = no working hardware, which is bad news. In general, newer software and hardware tends to work decently, but if you're using older hardware and peripherals, you might be forced to upgrade those along with the OS. For gamers in particular, it's advisable you keep XP on a separate partition at the very least, since there are many known issues with Vista and older games- usually due to driver issues. These range from relatively minor things like graphical glitches, to games just plain not running. For most there are workarounds, but personally, I'm not the kind that likes to do research and work in order to play (and I think most aren't). Of course, if you don't care about anything but the latest titles, then this isn't a big deal- but in my experience most gamers like to revisit oldies for good times' sake (I certainly do). When running newer titles, there is another factor to keep in mind: If your hardware is borderline running on XP, you will likely need to upgrade your hardware to run the same games on Vista. This is because Vista is a resource hog compared to XP, especially in terms of RAM usage.
The bottom line is that those that have XP should probably not upgrade to Vista. It simply doesn't offer enough new and useful features to be worth the trouble- and can be a great deal of trouble indeed. What advances it does offer are also not all good; I personally think Vista is actually less user-friendly than XP, though admittedly I do have a great deal more experience with the latter.
For those that are looking to buy or build a new Windows machine and actually have a choice, the better OS is more debatable. For those that have little or no experience with Windows, I will be honest and say that Vista MAY be a better choice. I can't really say for sure because I'm definitely not such a person and don't know anyone that is, but if Microsoft continues to base its operating systems off the Vista model, it might be best to just get used to it. Additionally, for gamers looking toward the future and buying DirectX 10 compatible hardware, XP simply doesn't support it. Gamers are also presumably purchasing the newest hardware anyway- most of which works fine on the new OS. For those that are familiar with Windows and want a minimum of fuss (e.g. folks that work at home), I recommend XP instead of Vista because it's both more mature as a piece of software, and is generally a lot more like older Windows versions. Vista differs from previous releases of Windows enough that finding familiar functionality can be a pain, especially for power users or those that like to deal with low level configuration. Most of it is still there in one shape or form, but almost everything is renamed and moved. Aside from these and the above reasons, XP is substantially cheaper and uses far less resources (RAM/CPU/video/disk space). Especially if you aren't buying top-line hardware, this can make a very serious difference in overall performance.
It should be noted that Microsoft is always releasing updates, and Vista is no exception. Service Pack 1 is now available, and is essentially a huge collection of bug fixes, minor performance enhancements, and program tweaks- most of which have already been made available as downloaded hotfixes. Unless you've experienced one of the specific issues addressed, and for some reason haven't been using automatic updates, you will likely not see any significant changes. If you really want to know exactly what they changed, you can look it up in the Knowledge Base. The best I can say is, it doesn't look like they broke anything obvious with it, so there's no reason NOT to get SP1 if you already have Vista. Service packs are available from automatic updates, so this specific product is more of a convenience than a real 'new release.' Microsoft claims that service packs won't be used to make major changes to the OS, and in this case that's not good news. I believe it likely that the next release of Windows (currently known as 'Windows 7') will be when most of the big problems are addressed.
In conclusion, I believe Windows Vista is a tie-in to a 'real' operating system release, just like Windows ME was a stopgap between Windows 98 and XP. However, it's actually less polished than ME was- relatively speaking- and looks like it was rushed to market with many features untested or incomplete. In many ways, Vista is probably the most disappointing Windows release of all time despite the fact that it's technically more advanced and 'better' (at least in theory) than any other release. Maybe it's because of all the new and revolutionary features that were promised, and weren't delivered in the end, or perhaps we've all just been expecting too much after such a long development time. Vista isn't necessarily a bad product or a bad operating system- it does generally work, once you get past its quirks and get used to how it looks, and this is why I didn't give it the lowest rating. In fact, if it is evolved a bit I can see it becoming an excellent OS. However, due to its cost and the fact that in its current state it's hardly an improvement over XP, I really can't recommend it. Gamers are the only folks that should seriously consider upgrading, and at the moment there's no compelling need to. In the meantime, I'm looking for the next Windows release to see whether Microsoft is going to put out the true successor to XP.
2 of 3 customers found the following review helpful:
Windows Vista SP1 versus the world., 2008-03-28
Disclosure: I use Windows for work and Mac OS X 10.5.2 for home.
Let's talk about Windows Vista Service Pack 1...
Finally after months of beta testing Service Pack 1 (SP1) for Vista, Microsoft re-releases Windows Vista which comes integrated with SP1. What has changed from the original Windows Vista release? First of all don't go looking for visual enhancements as Vista is already an all new operating system with lots of eye-candy to start with. So SP1 is meant to address kinks and bugs not found by the original beta testers. As with any operating system update, one can expect a more reliable and stable performing system. Whether or not it is readily apparent, a more reliable system is a faster system due to better programming efficiency. While Windows world will always bring tons of new third-party hardware, so one can expect better support for even newer products.
SP1 contains code update which is why current Vista users installing this update can expect a good solid wait in installation time. Try 1 hour. Results, of course, vary per system configuration and amount of hardware and peripherals installed.
More importantly, SP1 is meant to address their business customers. Because with the initial release of Vista, Business users didn't want to make the jump. Heck, regular users didn't want to make the jump. This major update is meant to give them another chance at making the upgrade while promising better deployment.
As we have seen from the release of Vista, existing Windows XP customers have not readily embraced this new OS. And those who made the jump found themselves reinstalling back to XP. (On the other hand, the opposite is true for Apple's Mac OS X 10.5 release. A majority made the switch from 10.4 rather than be left behind). With Windows users, they prefer to be left behind.
Let's back track...
Like any major operating system introduction (or any major software upgrade release), we can always expect integration problems which cannot be totally eliminated due to each user's individuality in hardware configuration and usage. In Apple's case, they have more control in the integration of their hardware and software. Apple decides which hardware to use and how to code their software properly. Because of this limited choice (versus the virtually unlimited software and hardware options available to custom PC builders) they will obviously encounter less problems than their Windows counterpart.
So in Microsoft's defense (although being a bigger company their poor coding and blatant rip-off of features and GUI is inexcusable), they have more to work with. It's not like Dell is the only company assembling a PC. We have the average Joe and hardcore gamers hand-picking everything from motherboard, memory and peripherals. If Apple is having compatibility problems with the few third-party add-ons, then Microsoft is entitled to have more leeway.
With the release of SP1 once again we can't expect to please everyone. However, people with newer system set-ups shouldn't generally have any problems. If you have a system more than two years old, I honestly don't think you are entitled to cry foul and state how slow this OS can be and unstable. But then again...
The problem with Microsoft is that...
They try not to alienate their users by trying to include everyone to upgrade. They list the minimum system requirement on the box as: 800MHz processor, 512MB system memory, CD ROM and VGA monitor. Come on!
When Apple releases their latest operating system you can be sure certain older models will not be included. And even if that particular "old" model is well capable of running the software, Apple will make sure to code their software to refrain from installing if you even try. So being an ever loyal Mac user, you end up purchasing one of the the latest and fastest machines available that comes loaded with the latest OS.
On the other hand, Microsoft is the opposite. They will try to make their latest and greatest OS run on your old 800MHz machine that runs only 512MB of memory on a VGA monitor. Then you come back complaining they released the poorest OS on the planet with empty promises that you can't even enjoy the reason why you upgraded to Windows Vista in the first place - the GUI of Windows Aero. In all honesty, it's okay to cut out old systems. You're not only doing yourself a favor in dealing with user headaches, you're also doing them a favor in enjoying what they already have. If they have an 800MHz system and only 512MB of memory until now, do you think upgrading to Windows Vista will make their experience any better?
So guess which company comes out the wiser and which company gets bad press and user feedback.
Another problem with Vista is that...
We have four flavors to choose from - Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Business and Ultimate. As if the unaffordable pricing won't confuse our pockets, we have to now decipher what we really need.
Without going into details, don't waste any more money that you are wasting and skip the Home Basic vesion. Home Premium will equip you with Media Center, while the Business version won't have it but instead come equipped with advanced backup features and better networking capability. Can't decide? Why there happens to be the Ultimate version which comes with what the Home Premium and Business version has and another feature called "Windows BitLocker Drive Encyption".
Here's an idea, you've already spent time and money to create all these features. Why not just introduce just two variations - one version caters to the Business server market and the other version caters to everyone else. (Yes, just like what Apple does). This is more cost effective on product packaging and and less strain spending on marketing just to educate everyone what the difference is.
With the time saved, your programmers can concentrate on making the OS even more stable and your marketing department can be more creative in beating Apple's ads.
Why upgrade from Windows XP...
Visually speaking, eye-candy. Windows Aero is visually stunning. Giving you a 3D perspective allows for efficiency in organization and a better overall user experience. Of course this comes at a price of being able to afford a faster processor and more memory.
Search. The counter-part of Mac's Spotlight. Find anything anywhere.
Integrated Windows Media Center. Better equip yourself with a tuner card if you want to make full use of this feature.
Better back up and restore capabilities to help protect user data.
Recommendation...
If you're buying a new PC or you have a relatively new system that MORE than meets not the "minimum system requirements" but the "recommended system requirements" I wouldn't hesitate to upgrade to Vista. It's been out for quite some time and majority of respectable software and hardware makers have had their hands on compatibility issues at this time.
SP1 doesn't make Windows Vista perfect. But the fact that you've reached this far in considering the upgrade, perhaps it's about time you make the jump (again, make sure you have a newer system to enjoy the experience).
Finally, I would skip this version and just go straight for Windows Vista Ultimate for just a few more dollars.
1 of 2 customers found the following review helpful:
my nero crashed on this system,not great for some like me, 2008-03-28
I didn't receive home premium,but I received "Ultimate".However as part of Amazon Vine this is where I am slated to post the review.
The face of the program is attractive,and the organization of windows more efficient.I also like the ease of booting up and the time saved.
I can only say that after upgrading from Vista home basic windows vista,reloading my programs became a fiasco in terms of getting my computer back to normal with all my programs.
First I was modifying or upgrading,but by some mishap I didn't have an "Old windows" folder that I thought would be there after the modification from windows vista basic. On windows vista basic home edition all my programs worked,no crashes.
If you run Nero (ahead) in my opinion the best burning program,stay away from this ultimate vista.
I found out later that my main burning program ahead nero wouldn't even reload.I was forced to use a dumbed down roxio program that came with my computer. I then googled to find many others with this problem. After an evening wasted with compatibility problems,I have decided that this program is not yet user friendly. I don't recommend it.ULTIMATE is anything but in my book.If the compatibility with Nero was adressed I would like the program now that most of my problems with changing has eased up.
 Media Additions, 2008-03-27
To be honest, I'm not going to write some critical review of Vista. The purpose of this review is to point out that the primary value of Home Premium over Home is the Media Center. It will make a media center into the equivalent of an AppleTV product allowing you to watch, download, share, or video media content. My favorite use is for the photos and music, but I've evaluated the use of the Cable Card Tuners (for my work in telecom). The media center TV interface is above average compared to some set top boxes, but not perfect. It does work well with Media Extenders (like the XBOX which I also tested in my work). My only negative comment is that Microsoft does not allow multiple Media Centers to talk to each other making any one of them an extender to any other.
9 of 12 customers found the following review helpful:
GOOD BUT NOT THAT MUCH BETTER FOR ME, 2008-03-26
Those who are looking for an expert's opinion on the Windows Vista Home Premium had best stop reading here and look elsewhere. I'm many miles from being knowledgeable in the area of computers and software and not at all fluent in geek speak. I'm strictly a garden variety computer user who logs more hours per day than I'll ever admit on our home computer.
My computer came with Windows XP and I'm very pleased with it - no crashes, easy to navigate. What more could I want?
After trying the Windows Vista Home Premium on another computer, I'm here to say that there seems to be very little difference. I would be just as happy with this as I am with the XP. So, if were buying yet another new computer I'd probably go for the Home Premium but wouldn't recommend buying it just to upgrade.
In other words, good product but why switch?
|
| Page: << 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 >> |
|