Neowin.net

Well there was for Windows XP. Maybe Microsoft think they're right on track and don't need a second RC. Very interesting IMO Go MS Go!

It was on a press release a while ago, that there would be only 1 release candidate instead of two as they did for Windows XP. I guess they wanted to sacrifice more testing so that they get Vista out to the public faster.

And that will be a major problem as far as compatability goes. Vista is nice when it works right, but I don't see many people buying it until a service pack for it is out.

From what I have read of this article, this is a build off the RTM branch, and if I am reading it correct, it is a build that could be RTM? Like, what a RC is supposed to be. Just from reading:



So, from that, the RTM is really an RC, right up until the real RTM in '07. In other words, the business users are still guinea pigs. Tut tut.

If MS think that Vista is on track I think they have settled for a very watered down product than was originally scheduled under the "Longhorn" name.

Yes, multiple features have been dropped, not least the WinFS file structure (would have been interesting), but after trying RC1, I cannot see a significant improvement over XP.

The gui is rather busy, the helpful options are difficult to get to. Seriously, try connecting to a WiFi network....it's easier in XP by miles!

...and have a new Windows Millenium on thier hands
Typical MS, rush rush rush

Maybe Microsoft has realised that the major issues have been changed, and thus, don't need that 'wide compatibility testing' but instead, focus on a small core people who provide good quality feedback rather than the, quite frankly, crap that joe public spews when submitting a bug report; want an example, look at the Mozilla bugzilla and the crap desciptions and lack-there-of of diagnostics that people do when giving a bug report; its next to impossible to actually track down the problem in the correct module.

Regarding Windows Vista compatibility - I'd like to see Microsoft give away virtual PC, and stop worrying so much about software compatibility; As for hardware compatibility, I'd sooner see Microsoft Windows Vista run well on a smaller group of computers that it supporting a heap of computers with crap reliability.

My main computer, Toshiba ( 1.73Ghz Core Duo, 1gig memory, 80gig hard disk, 256MB Nvidia GeForce Go 7300 Graphics, dual layer dvd writer etc) runs it beautifully, it runs Windows XP Professional absolutely perfectly, and it runs Windows RC1 perfectly as well.

If you purchase a machine from a 'big name' like IBM/Lenovo, Dell (shock!, HP/Compaq, Toshiba, Fujitsu, Acer etc. you should have a pretty reliable Vista experince, its just when you throw the home built machines, and the white box machines in the mix, when things start to come upstuck around the edges.

Last edited by kaiwai on 12 Sep 2006 - 06:23

Yes, but there's no solution for shortage of time. Hopefully they'll manage to get things wrapped up with their time constraints.

There is absolutely no reason to put out an OS release just to make the release date and that's what's happening. They've already spent 5+ years and 5+ billion in R&D. A little while longer to test and make things better isn't going to hurt. Vista feels slapped together in a rush and it shouldn't be that way.

RTM isnt build 5717, thats just the latest build to come out of the labs.

This build might not be for public consumption, there might be some huge bugs or compatibility problems that negate the possibility of being a public build.

There might also be things turned on that they arent ready for showing yet. Be greatful that they even released a public build for people to test.

define "version"

Dont you just love those uniformed posts

Build number does not necessarily means the number of "versions". AFAIK Build 55xx - 5600 is in the RC1 escrow branch, while the number is up to 57xx towards RTM.

BTW, I do not find any reference to 5717 in the article...

It's not. Microsoft set build numbers on a whim, especially when it's about new branches.

The final RC1 build was set to 5600 because Microsoft felt that number sounded pleasant and well rounded. They've done the same in the past, but this is the first time in Vista that the actual build released was the same as when they did the build number jump.

The RTM build will likely do something similar. The Windows 98 RTM is build 1998 because it was released in the year 1998. :-p

The RTM branch starts at build 5700 (there was likely no builds 5601 - 5699) and branched off some time during the 55xx builds IIRC, so you actually had 5700 a short while before 5600 was built.

Don't make the mistake to equal builds with build numbers. They usually correspond to builds, but far from always.

Ya, I now go to other news sites. I come here for the comments, they are funny sometimes..

totally agreed! vista is definately with far more options in a single window (say my computer) than windows xp. it certainly does not look simplied either! it is at first look more complex.

and the UI itself is way too gaudy and gets to you in a few hours before you want to get rid of all the weight and move
to windows classic view.

its just not ready for prime time. neither performance wise nor 'value for money' wise. not yet.

Glad its not just me.

It seems a bit wrong somehow that my 1280x1024 TFT screen seems too crowded with just a few open windows..

Also - how have people got on with the 'rewritten network stack' ? I was trying to configure it up for my home network and I must admit I found it a bit frustrating and slow when applying changes. It would sit for about 20 seconds even after the settings had been applied.. then the connection would temporarily disable itself.. and then activate but not work immediately.. and then go live. Takes about 35+ seconds all in to turn around a change. A little bit annoying but then I suppose you don't change network settings all that often!

Try going back to XP! it feels neater cleaner more simplified and with 3rd party solutions reasonably secure without being in your face like vista (uac) . you feel like it is the next version of windows after Vista lol

I felt claustrophobic with a 1400x1050 (thinkpad) resolution in Vista. It wasn't all bad though my ATI Mobility Radeo 9600 with 64 mb of dedicated memory got an additional 64 mb shared from the 1.5 gb system ram making it a 128 Mb card which was quite smart on part of ATI!

The network stack was well behaved, didnt face any problems there. However with 100 seconds of boot up time and 60 seconds of shutdown, compared to xp 24 seconds bootup and 12 seconds shutdown; it was just not happening.

Faced some BSods with incompatible programs like McAfee Enterprise 8.5i and Nero! well just had to kick Vista out.

Too bad it looked so promising after reading Paul Thurrott and others. Quite a disappointment.

Microsoft should be a little worried about so many of these problems at RC1 I must say.. i'm gonna give it a few more days as it seems to be ok just doing general desktop stuff but I get the impression I might as well forget about installing DesertCombat!

Just looking forward to some proper hardware accellerated drivers for my sound card - its an NForce2 mobo with onboard Soundstorm audio.. got it working using drivers from Windows Update but I can't turn on hardware accel in Winamp..

No, i don't think so. MS has enough resources that they can screw up Vista and still come back fighting with another Windows release (as long as it is an improvment).