Windows Vista First impressions

I've finally got round to installing Vista and having a play. As I had a spare PC, I installed it in standalone mode - that is, not dual boot. The install went smoothly, except in hung at a curtain/northen lights screen. However, a reboot seemed to clear the problem and configuration continued fine.

Things I like
The file search system is infinitely better than the inbuilt XP system. Very quick, and no pesky dog!

You can run as standard user, and when you need to do something with Admin privileges, you are prompted to enter an admin users credentials before being able to continue the task. Excellent. Of course, you've been able to do this with Linux for years, but this is a welcome addition to Windows functionality.

These two features (search and easy ability to run without admin privileges) alone make me keen to work with Vista.

Event viewer has been updated and seems to give a lot more options - such as viewing other logs from the same interface.

The system configuration tool looks good, with key options such as service controls, boot and startup controls in one place.

Internet browsing is quick (subjectively). I thought this was IE7, but Firefox is also quick. Even with PC-cillin installed, the Vista PC is obviously quicker than my XP PC. I'm not sure why. Perhaps the network interfaces are quicker.

The built in calendar is interesting and I think a welcome addition. The ability to share calendars via icalendar is good.

General performance is OK. I was a little concerned that the system would be very slow, as the PC I've installed it on isn't a particularly high spec. But it seems to be coping OK. However, it is memory hungry. As I write this, I'm running the sidebar, PC-Cillin and Firefox, and my memory usage is at 627Mb. It looks to me like you'll need at least a Gig of RAM when using Vista in anger.

The new start menu looks good and well organised. It does appear to be easier to access the system with it than previous start menu designs.

Things I don't like
Default user has admin rights. This is annoying as the system works so well when using a standard user account, with a prompt for admin user credential when needed. I am firmly of the belief that Microsoft should follow the linux practice of getting users to create an admin account and a standard account. Not doing this is going to leave us with the same problems seen with XP - lots of users running as admin, and therefore an easy job for malware to install with the same privileges.

When you create a new account, you are not prompted to specify a password. This relates to the previous point, and I am sure will result in even more users accessing the internet via admin accounts with blank passwords.

File extensions are hidden by default. I would have thought that the lesson had been learnt with XP. Hiding extensions makes it easier for malicious coders to disguise their malware. The good news is that it is fairly easy to turn this option off.

Things I'm not sure about
Personally I'd prefer my web browser to appear quite different to windows explorer. Then it is easy to know when you have moved from the safety of your file system out into the wilds of cyber space. IE7 is very like the windows explorer. With applications like help and update agents stepping out to the internet realtively easily, it is surprising easy to find yourself outside your safe zone very quickly without realising it. However, that's a critisism of XP too, so not a change for the worse.

The sidebar has potential but is limited at present. There seems to be no way to resize it, and the application available by default have limited customisation. As a keen Desktop Sidebar user, I was keen to see the Vista sidebar in action, and I have to say, I am underwhelmed. However, I am sure this will improve.

Summary
I am pleasantly surprised at how much I like the new system. The disappointing elements can be corrected manually and fairly easily. The search and admin user options are splendid. I won't be rushing out to install it on my systems as I'd have to upgrade the memory in them all first. However, I am optimistic that bringing new systems into the network will be a reasonably pleasant experience.

 

I have 1 GB of RAM and I was horrified when I saw that Vista + PC-cilin = ~630 MB and Vista + PC-cilin + WMP11 + IE7 = ~920 MB. However, I tried to open more applications to see how much it can handle. To my big surprise, I opened 20+ Vista and Office 2007 apps, memory usage went up to 1,5 GB, but the system was not unstable or slugish! I didn't know what to do, I couldn't find more apps to open! It seemed nothing can bring this Vista down!

I hope MS has improved user accounts privileges, so that users will really be able to use Windows with non-administrator accounts, the Linux way. But the fact that the installer doesn't ask you to create a standard account doesn't bode well. Do they already know it won't work properly?

One of my few disappointments is that Vista doesn't detect my WinFast 2000 XP Deluxe TV tuner. XP drivers don't work and there are no Vista drivers on the Leadtek site. Does anyone know how I could solve this problem?

 

I was running on 500mb of RAM and I must admit the system's performance seemed ok. Usually when you start using the hard disk as a RAM cache, performance drops significantly. I wonder if the disk caching/paging system has been improved. However, it's still a lot of memory being used.

 

I’ve got it on an Athlon 1.6gzh with 512 ram and it’s perfectly useable. The install size is horrendous at 6.4gigs, going up to 7gigs all by itself if left alone for a while. I assume this has to do with indexing the files as there is a lot of disk activity for a long time.

It’s good to see the ability in Disk Management of resizing partitions, and the added backup feature of imaging "“ even though it’s limited. The new bootmgr replacement of the ntloader and the boot.ini seems an improvement as no changes are needed to clone to another partition. Independent booting from a second hard drive is possible, but from logicals is causing problems, mainly because my bootmanager conflicts with the new MBR "“ I hope these are not insurmountable problems.

First impressions however I’m afraid are not good. I think it is just 2K/XP with a hodgepodge of extras and gadgets gaffer taped on, with the obligatory new paint job to make it look shiny and new. Thousands of new exploits waiting in the wings. I hope it’s not a step too far, like ME was for 98se. Just seems too complex and the further lack of user control is extremely irritating.

 

The important point is that when a program installs, it can install with the permissions of the current user. If a program has to switch users in the back ground to install, it is that much more difficult for it to install with admin privileges.

This sounds like an excuse to me. If you make it easy for users to follow poor practice that is exactly what they will do. On the other hand, if you make it easy for them to follow good practice, they will do that. Users are lazy. You have to make the system work to best practice and make it easy. And you absolutely have to make sure it is not easier for them to do it wrong. Making it easiest for people to use admin accounts as standard is crazy, when the system is there so they don't need to.

Anyway, you think beginners don't use linux! Then you haven't been to university or the far east.

All the time? How often do you change your system configuration or add new applications? Are you really saying that you would expect a normal user to do that more than once a day? I doubt most people would need to switch to admin more than once a week. Is that really too much hassle?

I've used this system with my linux installs. It isn't a hassle. I personally believe that advanced users will not have an excuse not to work this way with Vista. Beginners will only fail to use this system if it easier for them not to and/or advanced users guide them towards not using it.

For me, the killer reason to upgrade my systems to this new operating system is because it can be the easiest to use securely. That makes Vista a very positive upgrade.

Sorry if that is a rant, but there is the opportunuty to make the Windows experience better. It will be a crying shame if this is missed.

 

The Vista Defragmenter is an insult to any user that knows what a defragmenter is. It told me I did not need to defragment (after I had installed the system), but didn't show me the results of the analysis. I insisted that it defragment, but it didn't let me choose which partition to defragment or any other options and it didn't show any progress bar or anything. You don't know whether it will take 3 minutes or 3 hours.

The surprise came when I booted back into XP and Diskeeper showed that my Vista partition had 28 % fragmentation !

 

Absolutely agree with that. You should be able to customise any system to work the way you want it to do. I'm arguing that the out of the box configuration should follow best practice and that it should be made easy to keep to good practice.

I'm going to start using the system in anger shortly, so will give you some feedback on how annoying the pop ups are. Though obviously my opinion is biased

 

You and most Windows users I think.