No rush to Vista

So last Thursday was Windows Vista Launch Day ... finally. But while Microsoft had its banners flying, some folks I know were more on the ho-hum scale. My buddy Paul Lindo, an IT consultant, was wondering if "it might just be Windows XP with a prettier face."

And it's true that Vista suffered several features "adjustments" as well as a lengthier-than-expected road to shrink, including the infamous 2004 dumping of WinFS and its resulting ground-up re-programming effort. So while the rest of the business world was wondering about the effects of all this Vista voodoo, I wanted to hear Microsoft's opinion. My invite to the actual launch event, however, seems to have been lost in the mail -ahem!, so I had to call Microsoft to find out. Surprise, surprise, they're happy as clams.

"It may have been a long road, but watching how our early adopters are responding to the platform, we know we've got a winner," said Brad Goldberg, Microsoft's general manager of client product management. When I told him Lindo's comment, he didn't seem fazed.

View: Full Article @ InfoWorld

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Security Update for Excel 2002 (KB923089)

Next Story

ATI loses ground in graphics after AMD purchase

59 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

With OpenSUSE 10.2 and Solaris 10 11/06 (Update 3) released in the last couple of weeks, who needs Vista?

ANova, I have largely found the opposite experience from you, and I don't exactly have the latest and greatest of hardware. In fact, with the exception of my SATA hard drive and one (of my two) DVD burners, none of the hardware is newer than two years old (and even the DVD burner is almost a year old).
You having issues with a partoicular brand of hardware (say, nVidia)?

I'm not having issues with any particular piece of hardware and it is about as fast as it can be but it's just not as fast as XP, which is to be expected since it has the 3d UI now as well as 30 more processes running in the background. My computer is no slouch (P4 @ 3.4 GHz, 1 GB DDR500 and X850 XT) I just don't find much other than the UI that impresses me. Some apps (including windows apps) do crash occasionally as well, especially media center which does so on a consistent basis if I add too much at once or while it's gathering info on music and videos. I find little use for it overall.

I want innovation... how come Vista does not utilize it's own technologies...

eg... WPF- not even the gadets can use it without hacks.

I wanted to see a "Cinematic desktop experiance" I don't in Vista.

I'll give it time...

I'm interested but not right away, it's not like XP isn't stable but I always like to be on the lastest if I can Maybe after the holiday is over

Quote - AfroTrance said @ #19.1
So that's true? Haha... then there won't be a DirectX 10 only game for about 6 years...

I hope PC devs switch to OpenGL. I don't know why they ever switched away from it. Except for John Carmack. You'd think he might know better than the script kiddies who make games at EA?

XP is 2k w/ prettier face... so Vista must be 2k w/ gorgeous face.

Anyway, I did some of the beta testing on Vista. I've argued with some people on this forum and elsewhere that Vista does not offer anything over XP.

If someone can fill in the following blank for me, then I will submit that Vista is worthwhile:

Windows Vista helps my productivity with my job because it has ______________, which XP did not have.

About the only thing Vista has over XP that I'm even remotely interested in is DirectX 10. Any they just chose to do that to increase sells for Vista so screw MS.

Quote - Shadrack said @ #1

Windows Vista helps my productivity with my job because it has ______________, which XP did not have.

I'll take the bait:

Windows Vista helps my productivity with my job because it has saved indexed searches, which allows me to see all my video files in two clicks, fast, which XP did not have. Sure, you can save searches in XP, but it does not auto-load them, and has to browse the drive every time.

That feature alone has saved me hours of work with videos, pictures, and a mess of other files.

I still think Win2K was the best OS Microsoft released, for its time. To me, XP WAS just 2K with a prettier (I thought it was 10 times uglier) face and superfluous additions. My initial reaction to seeing the Luna interface was "Awwww how cute!! It must be a Fisher Price computer....wait, this is Windows XP?". I ended up reverting to 2K for years, until XP SP2. As for Vista, my computer is too old to play nice with its video card requirements, so I haven't used it enough to form a general opinion about it.

"it might just be Windows XP with a prettier face."

deja vu. Seriously, I could've sworn the same was said about WinXP when Win2K was the OS of choice.

So, Vista is XP with a prettier face...
And XP is 2k with a prettier face...
Which was NT with a prettier face... :ermm:

So, either Vista is an NT clone that looks supermodel-hot, or this line of reasoning is flawed.

Perhaps you will agree that Vista does look pretty, but also has a nice personality. :P There really are a lot of (much needed) improvements in Vista.

XP was 2k with a prettier (uglier..) face.

The only features added in XP over 2K were fairly insignificant. Infact I disable almost every feature in XP not in 2k.

This is probably why people say the same thing with Vista.

Active Directory and all the great centralized management that came with it is what made the Windows 2000 line great. Improvements in that regard have all been steady, but incremental upgrades to the functionality originally built for Windows 2000. The fact that Windows 2000 isn't an antiquated piece of junk is a real testament to either just how good it was, or just how little has changed.

Windows XP was to bring the stability of the NT line to the home user, but changed only a handful of things from 2000. System Restore, Remote Desktop, and a handful of little utilities and button-shuffling is all it really amounted to, hence the 5.1 versioning. Calling XP "2000 with a prettier face" is still fairly accurate, though you might need some beer goggles for the "pretty" to kick in :cool:.

Vista is supposed to bring in the security, and it really might do that. The only problem with that is how Microsoft has been claiming to bring in the security with every new version of Windows, so nobody really believes them anymore. A consultant doesn't care much at all about new audio APIs, or the latest version of DirectX (you'd be amazed at how many corporate desktops run 8MB Rage 3D graphic boards), so that leaves the new security features, and the "pretty face". BitLocker might be cool, and UAC is neat, but they simply can't be trusted yet -- selling Microsoft products on security is simply off the table until further notice.

I was at a Microsoft show earlier today, though none of what was shown there was any secret to anyone who cares. The new server systems will be powerful and manageable. Office 2007 is a breakthrough in UI design. Vista is really really secure...

well, in any case, at least it looks nice.

Quote - Galley said @ #15
Everyone's waiting until Mac OS X Leopard ships and will then make the switch. ;)

That sounds about right. I just saw some pigs fly over the frozen wastelands of Hell.

yes yes yes, ........... been hearing the same since the first incarnation of OS X , and people are still using windows more than the apple OS.

If apple really wants more people to switch over, they'll better start by lowering their prices

Oh right I forgot about that. And if you want I can get you some awesome OS X 10.5 screenshots. All you have to do is fire up Mac OS X 10.4 and take some screenshots. Or, fire up Mac OS X 10.3 and add a tiny Spotlight logo in the upper right corner, then take a screenshot. Or, go 'About This Mac' and change the 4 to a 5.

At least Microsfot doesn't charge for its service packs. The only person on the edge of their seat for Leopard is Steve. Oh and Galley.

I wonderhow many people will be camped out in front of the Mac store the day it's out.

Or if anyone will even notice for that matter.

Quote - C_Guy said @ #15.3
Oh right I forgot about that. And if you want I can get you some awesome OS X 10.5 screenshots. All you have to do is fire up Mac OS X 10.4 and take some screenshots. Or, fire up Mac OS X 10.3 and add a tiny Spotlight logo in the upper right corner, then take a screenshot. Or, go 'About This Mac' and change the 4 to a 5.

At least Microsfot doesn't charge for its service packs. The only person on the edge of their seat for Leopard is Steve. Oh and Galley.

I wonderhow many people will be camped out in front of the Mac store the day it's out.

Or if anyone will even notice for that matter.

Well, based on my experience at the Apple store in London when Tiger came out, about a 1000 or so were there.

As we're aware now, operating systems are very much about adding new features to what works. OS X works, Windows works, so they don't change it. Sure, they've made Vista look fancy, like apple did when they released OS X, but its still an operating system with a number of features. I'm sure you're not silly enough to think that the difference between two versions of OS X is a 16x16 pixel icon, any more than you'd think the difference between XP and Vista is the new UI.

Microsoft do not release service packs that add features (appart from security, e.g. SP2), Apple's releases are smaller, but then most people would probably have preferred Microsoft to go down the same route - more frequent, cheaper releases. I think this is something they'll try to do in the future, to some extent at least. I certainly doubt they'll wait 5 years for the next release.

Try and be rational about these things!

I'm using Vista RC1 as my desktop at work. Its fantastic, its a significant enough improvement over XP to consider a new operating system.

Quote - ziadoz said @ #14
I'm using Vista RC1 as my desktop at work. Its fantastic, its a significant enough improvement over XP to consider a new operating system.

How is it fantastic?

Our campus is waiting to figure out how we're going to handle the new validation crap before we even start testing.

With quad core and 8 gigs of DDR3 Vista will rock.


It has been 5 years since XP was launched and computers were slower then so Vista will get better when hardware improves over the next five years.

And with quad core and 8 gigs of memory available in the future ('casue DDR3 isn't available just now) XP would rock even more considering that it doesn't soak up system resources the way Vista does.

I'm not going to Vista untill DX-10 games show up, and even then I might not.

And with quad core and 8 gigs of memory available in the future ('casue DDR3 isn't available just now) XP would rock even more considering that it doesn't soak up system resources the way Vista does.

That's the most ridiculous comment I've read. You think because XP doesn't make use of all those resources that it's going to be faster??? What are you smoking?

Quote - Brandon Live said @ #12.2

That's the most ridiculous comment I've read. You think because XP doesn't make use of all those resources that it's going to be faster??? What are you smoking?

And what resources vista has that xp dont?

Vista brings new features but also left too many improvements behind, and has too many garbage inside...

At least the new interface is cute.

Quote - Brandon Live said @ #12.2
That's the most ridiculous comment I've read. You think because XP doesn't make use of all those resources that it's going to be faster??? What are you smoking?


If your a programmer working for Microsoft, then I doubt you would have the time to really worry about what people are smoking.

Very wrong Topic headlines...mis leading too....

I am ready for Vista as my company is...my company is planning to upgrade its 40% of XP based system into Vista Business in April or May...

I wil be buying a Vista Ultimate in jan 30th or in feb.. :-)

VISTA IS NOT XP....its different than XP...no more GDI in our RAM to be used..aero in GPU takes care of it..
No need to install a desktop search application...inbuilt functionality takes it..

So the list goes.............

Quote - guruparan said @ #10
VISTA IS NOT XP....its different than XP...no more GDI in our RAM to be used..aero in GPU takes care of it..

If you believe that, I think you will be disappointed when you see how much RAM Vista's GUI takes up.

i think that licensing will be a issue in a future, the increase of microsoft demands on licensing make it harder for enterprise and bussiness to implement vista plus there are still companies that its in process to implement XP

This guy is an IT consultant and he's not sure if Vista is just XP with a new interface? He'd better be damned sure one way or the other if he intends to be hired by anyone. And just ONCE I'd like to see someone complain about WinFS being dropped and be able to explain what it was. (It was a metadata-based relational storage system. See: WinFS on Wikipedia)

I don't really get the title "No Rush To Vista" when the article says "“It may have been a long road, but watching how our early adopters are responding to the platform, we know we've got a winner”

And, yes, any IT "consultant" who thinks Vista is XP with a prettier interface probably doesn't even know how to turn a computer on. Maybe he'd be better suited to a job flipping burgers?

Quote - C_Guy said @ #6
I don't really get the title "No Rush To Vista" when the article says "“It may have been a long road, but watching how our early adopters are responding to the platform, we know we've got a winner”

And, yes, any IT "consultant" who thinks Vista is XP with a prettier interface probably doesn't even know how to turn a computer on. Maybe he'd be better suited to a job flipping burgers?

Honestly, that's all Vista is. Prettier interface, some tweaks in how the menus work and some of the features, such as networking amongst other devices, and some additional security settings, all of which present more complication than it does security. Supposedly, a certain version of Vista (the Ultimate edition) shuts down all unnecessary applications when you load a game, but I never seen that happening anytime I have ever used it. Aside from that (if it even ever works), the only other reason I see to use Vista is DX10, since it's allegedly going to be Vista-exclusive software.

If Microsoft was smart, they would have written an all-new kernel code for Vista (like they did from Windows 98 to Windows 2000--well, they didn't really write a new kernel--but they switched to the NT kernel) so it would be harder for hackers to infect systems with spyware, viruses, trojans, and the like. Surely, it would be a while before consumers had any applications that run, since developers would have to completely rewrite their applications to run on the new kernel, but about a year down the road, if not as little as 6 months, it would be a much better and more secure operating system.

Six months down the road it may be better, but as of now, it's not worth the price tag, especially considering the big reason to use Vista is the additional optimization in the Ultimate edition, and DX10; however, DX10 isn't going to be heavily used for a while, and with the Ultimate edition not doing as it was originally described to do, I don't see a reason to upgrade to Vista for at least a year, if not longer.

Surely, it would be a while before consumers had any applications that run, since developers would have to completely rewrite their applications to run on the new kernel

Mistwaver - we DID write tons of all-new kernel code for Vista (NT6 kernel). A massive amount of work went into making the kernel and the core OS layer more secure. Tons of new code, new tools, new compilers and libraries... things that we could never do to such a degree in an XP service pack. Not to mention ASLR and huge improvements to DEP. However the NT architecture was built in such a way that applications are completely abstracted from the kernel layer - most of the time by the Win32 subsystem. A new kernel doesn't mean that applications have to be rewritten or even recompiled - since the API layer remains compatible.

I'm assuming the "prettier interface" you're referring to is mostly the DWM? Having a composited desktop is about more than just pretty effects, as cool as those are. It also (combined with WDDM) allows applications on Vista to leverage Direct3D and WPF without the limitations they face on XP (espeically when running multiple D3D/WPF applications).

But that's such an incredibly small part of Vista... There are hundreds of new features throughout the OS, and tons of useability improvements everywhere. Just look at the new shell, with massively revamped Search features. Heck just the new Setup is a worth a lot in my mind - no more dependence on floppy disks to load RAID drivers, for example. The new Start menu, Task Manager, MMC snap-ins, networking UI (both wired and wireless), network and firewall settings that are specific to individual networks, a faster and far more robust copy engine, the new photo gallery, grep search that uses IFilters to crack file contents, indexed search over network drives... I could go on and on.

And that's not even touching on countless more security features, like UAC and vastly more functional LUA accounts, protected mode IE, registry and filesystem virtualization and isolation, patchguard, the major changes to the session manager especially around services which now run in an isolated non-interactive session.

Sure, on some level every application release is just the last version plus a bunch of changes and additions - if you want to be as generic and oversimplified as possible.

Quote - Mistwaver said @ #6.1
Six months down the road it may be better, but as of now, it's not worth the price tag, especially considering the big reason to use Vista is the additional optimization in the Ultimate edition, and DX10; however, DX10 isn't going to be heavily used for a while, and with the Ultimate edition not doing as it was originally described to do, I don't see a reason to upgrade to Vista for at least a year, if not longer.
To be honest, I will likely be using Home Premium instead of Ultimate. The only feature I don't like is the inability for Home Premium to connect to another PC using Remote Desktop. However, since I much prefer VNC to Remote Desktop, I doubt that will be an issue. Regardless, don't automatically assume that Ultimate is the best version for you. Ultimate is just Home Premium + Business with a cherry on top.

My buddy Paul Lindo, an IT consultant, was wondering if "it might just be Windows XP with a prettier face."

Well I wouldn't employ him as a consultant! Sounds like my mum knows more about Vista than him!!

IMHO, Paul or the author of this article have no idea what on earth they are talking about. Vista is a complete 100000000% revamp. It is both a 32bit and 64bit OS. It has 100x the security features that XP never had. For me, Vista is a completly new OS. It does carry over some aspects of XP but not the code and the security. I have been to two events where Vista was talked about. I went to a TS2 Event and a the Intel Microsoft Read 2 Rock Roadshow. Both were great. The demonstation of Vista at both absolutely blew my mind. Vista has a feature called BitLocker which locks down the hard drive so you have to put in a password or key to get it to boot. So I say Vista ia NOT another XP.

Quote - AaronZ said @ #4
It has 100x the security features that XP never had.

100(never=0)=0

You're saying Vista has zero security?

By the way - I feel perfectly secure with XP - always have. So, I suppose Vista would impress those that don't have a clue about security.

Quote - AaronZ said @ #4.2
NO NO NO...Vista is more secure and has 100% security built into it.
Wait.. wait...

"Security" is a product? Where can I buy some of this "100% security"? That was I can install it and never have another security worry in my lifetime.

Vista is not a completely new OS, its probably 90% the same code as XP. It is not a 32bit and 64bit OS, its one or the other - unlike OS X Leopard for example, which can run both 64 and 32bit applications and drivers at once.

Quote - eAi said @ #4.4
Vista is not a completely new OS, its probably 90% the same code as XP. It is not a 32bit and 64bit OS, its one or the other - unlike OS X Leopard for example, which can run both 64 and 32bit applications and drivers at once.

Your are quite wrong. Vista's code is more than 20% bigger than XP's code, so taking that into consideration, along with the new DirectX, IE, MP, Sound Engine, Networking Stack, and etc - Vista is at least 40% new code.

The product which hit the shelves as Vista took a long and sorry slide from the revolutionary Longhorn OS Microsoft had planned and presented as “in development” at an MS Security Summit a mere two years ago. What happened?
Let's see:
1) The "Secure Computing Base" idea was planned as a hardware-software combination as an excellent concept. Upon further discussions with engineers, it was a feasible and secure solution-perhaps the most secure to date. It would have protected part of your HD the moment you hit the "ON" switch. Good idea-dumped. A security chip would have been integrated on the motherboard and it also included a pristine thin client. As time went by, not nearly enough product was in a finalized state. MS starting cutting.. With the exception of XBOB, MS has a sorry record of hardware production or any complex system creation.. Mice-keyboards, etc doesn’t count. To make this feasible, MS should have teamed with both a chip and hardware manufacturer. Bill does not often "share the wealth" and this time was no different. Unfortunately, this is a major loss, not only MS but users as well. While Steve Ballmer went to great lengths to make it clear that Microsoft could harden a platform with software, the infosec glitterati among you know that a hardware fix would have made this a revolutionary platform-one that set new standards in both soft and hardware throughout the IT world.

2) WinFX- as above. In timing several major platforms release at nearly the same time, they stretched their technical personnel to the breaking point and beyond.

3) Many subunits were downsized and are now only a side-show in the RTM.

4) Lots of in-house reshuffling occurred during the time Office and Vista were in development. Each change signaled problems in Redmond. There are more, but I will spare you the read.

In sum, I wonder way Micros push itself to the near breaking-point? This would have been a companywide disaster if any of these platforms had major technical problems. A middle aged Microsoft knows it's in shark infested waters. I hope that a more reasonable and sustainable organization results from this experience.

Secure Computing base, was and still is part of 'trusted computing platform', to be quite frank i'd rather not have hardware based DRM in my PC at all.

I'm glad it was ditched, so very glad.

But i agree with the rest.

#1 - What do you think Bitlocker is?

#2 - WinFX is not called .NET Framework 3.0. It's still there, just a new name.

#3 - Huh?

#4 - Yeah, everyone knows about the reset. So what? That's ancient history. Vista is a fantastic and rock-solid release with a lot of compelling features.

Vista does have a lot of compelling features, but I'd hardly call it rock-solid. If you read the neowin forums, you'll see quite a few confirmed bugs and other annoyances.

Umm.... right.....

And I especially love this bit:
My buddy Paul Lindo, an IT consultant, was wondering if "it might just be Windows XP with a prettier face."
If he was a real IT consultant, he would have been running Vista on his home PC or a test machine and would know the differences. Whoever wrote this article is knob.

Since when do businesses flock to new products anyway? Most places are only just starting to upgrade to WinXP, or they're still on 2000.

Exactly!

We use mostly Win2k on desktops here (after using Win95 for far too long! ). We have a few XP desktops now, as the Win2k units are needing to be replaced. But, out on the factory floor, you will see almost every PC out there running old NT4.

Quote - M2Ys4U said @ #1
Since when do businesses flock to new products anyway? Most places are only just starting to upgrade to WinXP, or they're still on 2000.

My workplace is in the middle of switching 3000+ desktops over from NT 4 to XP... *shudder*.. when i joined them a few months ago i went "umm i read about NT4 in history text books."

I've talked to the IT guys at corp for my company and they aren't even going to consider Vista until SP2 and we are one of the larger MS Solutions providers.

Here is a good article on the why corp America is not ready. Since 50% of the PCs inventoried are below Windows Vista's basic system requirements and roughly half of these PCs will need to be replaced outright to run Vista, plus 94% are not ready for Vista Premium edition, it would appear that there are even more reasons to hold off on switching other than just software compatibility and OS stability issues.

Our company is only going to switch to XP SP2 the beginning of next year. They have been testing it for god knows how long to make sure all the in-house software will work on it. The process to switch all the desktops and laptops to the "new" XP SP2 is going to take another 2-3 years itself.

Quote - Odom said @ #1.4
Our company is only going to switch to XP SP2 the beginning of next year. They have been testing it for god knows how long to make sure all the in-house software will work on it. The process to switch all the desktops and laptops to the "new" XP SP2 is going to take another 2-3 years itself.
Its exactly the same where I work, they just installed SP2 within the last couple of months after about 8 months of testing. This is a global company that employs 30,000 or so people - certainly not the largest company but pretty large. I can't see why they'd move to Vista until they're pushed, the amount of effort that has to go into testing every single application just against a service pack is huge - even more would have to be done (and fixed) for Vista - and for not a huge gain either, whatever Microsoft would have you believe, its not going to suddenly make everyone work twice as fast...

Oh well, eventually they'll have to switch when XP's support is discontinued.

My company didn't migrate to Windows XP until 2004, 3 years after the initial launch date. I very much doubt we will have anything Vista before next year this time.

Have been speaking to our devs, they were testing XP ever since 2 months after it came out. Found out that SP1 was too unstable with our apps. By now they are pretty much ready with testing SP2. 1st Q next year they will be rolling out an image of Windows XP SP2. We are still waiting for the OK to move the servers to 2003. On the other hand, everything is working great now, so why change.