Windows Vista Hits RTM [Archive] - Thoughts Media Forums

View Full Version : Windows Vista Hits RTM

Darius Wey

11-08-2006, 08:00 PM

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/nov06/11-08VistaRTM.mspx' target='_blank'>http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/...08VistaRTM.mspx</a><br /><br /></div><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/wey-20061108-windowsvista.jpg" /><br /><br />Earlier in the week, it was the <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/index.php?action=expand,52280">2007 Office system</a>; just a few seconds ago, it was <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/">Windows Vista's</a> turn to reach the RTM stage. General availability is scheduled for January 30, though business consumers will be able to pick it up at the end of this month. Windows Vista marks the start of something new in the world of Windows Mobile, as ActiveSync officially passes the baton on to the Windows Mobile Device Center. Are you ready for the switch? ;)

petvas

11-08-2006, 08:20 PM

I have to say that I am deeply disappointed by Vista. I first installed it last January (the Beta 2 version) and I immediately saw that Microsoft chose the wrong way...
The interface is too cluttered, information displayed on screen is less in comparison to Windows XP and the new interface....well, I hate it! My problem with Vista is that Microsoft didnt really change anything, they just hide all the well known Control Panel applets and presented these new "summary" web pages as Control Panel applets...I just dont understand the idea behind this change...
The User Access Control works really terrible and it only annoys someone. Microsoft should really copy Apple's implementation. They do copy everything from MAC OS, I just wonder why they miss that one...
The new Windows Explorer is certainly different than the previous one, I just need to get used to that. If anyone has worked with Finder, will see the similarities...
If someone wonders what Microsoft has been doing the last six years, the answer is easy: The first four years Microsoft tried to implement really cool features like WinFS, Avalon, etc. At the end of these four years they realized that these features were too far away from a release, so they completely stopped the whole project and started from the beginning!!!
What you will see in Vista is the work of the last two years!!!

I dont want to sound too negative here, but really I cannot find a really good reason to upgrade. On the contrary, I made the switch and I am using MAC OS the last 8 months and I am extremely happy with it.

On the positive side I would like to mention the new Backup Tool that allows the user to make an online image of his/her system. This image can be used with the Vista Boot DVD to completely restore a Vista installation.
The new Event Viewer is also very good and allows you to really drill down into the system. It provides a really centralized view of what is happening on the system.

The Hardware requirements are a killer and will make the most businesses stay away from Vista. For the home user Vista is certainly appealing if someone wants to have the latest (not the greatest!).

I am certainly that Vista will succeed, not because it is a good OS (it isnt!) but because of the whole OEM Model. Everyone that goes to the supermarket and buys a PC will eventually get Vista...Its really a shame that the market works like that...Its like VHS and Beta, VHS is like Windows and Beta like MAC OS...

deemota

11-08-2006, 08:41 PM

I think he was referring if you are ready for the change for Mobile Center. I'm sure he wasnt talking about Vista itself.......LOL

Anyways, I welcome the new Mobil Device Center. It certainly cant be any worse than ActiveSync......

petvas

11-08-2006, 08:44 PM

Dyvim

11-08-2006, 09:12 PM

No, it cant get any worse than ActiveSync! :)

Well maybe it can't get any worse than ActiveSync 4.x, but it can get worse than ActiveSync 3.x which (if you don't have to sync with WM 5) allows you to wirelessly sync over WiFi. But then again, I'm still using a WM 2003 SE device, so AS 3.8 still works for me.

SteveHoward999

11-08-2006, 11:19 PM

I have to say that I am deeply disappointed by Vista. I first installed it last January (the Beta 2 version) and I immediately saw that Microsoft chose the wrong way...

I must admit, I largley agree with your first 3 paragraphs. I particularly disliked the way common tasks have been hidden by an extra layer of 'simplicity'. I can see why Microsoft added this irritating layer - they are trying to accomodate the common man rather than the Power User. But that's no real excuse for what appears to be a series of bacjkward steps.

Having said that, I am a developer and I have to cope with watever Micorsoft throws at us. I managed to buy myself a nice new laptop with 256Mb graphics, 200Gb HDD and Core 2 Duo chip. Should be enough grunt even for Vista :-)

petvas

11-08-2006, 11:27 PM

Having said that, I am a developer and I have to cope with watever Micorsoft throws at us. I managed to buy myself a nice new laptop with 256Mb graphics, 200Gb HDD and Core 2 Duo chip. Should be enough grunt even for Vista :-)

The new API is said to be good. maybe the changes for the developers are worth an upgrade. But yes, you are right, as a developer you have to follow...

SteveHoward999

11-08-2006, 11:39 PM

The new API is said to be good. maybe the changes for the developers are worth an upgrade. But yes, you are right, as a developer you have to follow...

I don't do Windows development. I use specific tools that (I hope) won't be overly upset by Vista or by Internet Explorer 7. So far, indications are there may be some issues but hopefully they are not going to remain long term.

mscdex

11-09-2006, 02:24 AM

I'll be sticking with XP (and AS 3.8 - for network/wifi sync and HPC compatibility) for the forseeable future, as only 1 of my devices will work with the new Mobile Device Center (I have mostly HPCs, and the 1 device is a WM2003 PPC). I haven't tried out Vista Beta2 or RC1 out yet though, since I don't have a spare PC with a dvd drive that doesn't already have a better OS on it (linux) :P

bnycastro

11-09-2006, 02:57 AM

I probably won't be upgrading to Vista until I am forced too [i.e. I buy a WM device that requires it, or MS stops support for XP], I like to change my mobile devices a lot but not so much my notebook. Besides my notebook is only 1.83Ghz CoreDuo 1024 DDR2 RAM and Intel GMA, so it might not be able to run Vista anyway. Can we get Mobile Device Center for XP?

alex_kac

11-09-2006, 03:40 AM

I too have no intention of getting Vista for more than anything than a test Virtual Machine.

And it still is ActiveSync behind the scenes with a new UI and name.

isajoo

11-09-2006, 05:21 AM

NOT TO MUCH OFF TOPIC, but, i have been trying to read up more about the the requirements for a PC for running Vista....it seems that most PC's/laptops with decent processor/RAM and graphics card that supports directX9, will be able to get vista(regular, not premium) to run, now, how smooth the OS will run, I have not tested that. Hope mines works,its a PM 1.7 laptop, 1gb ram, Intel® 910GML and 17" WXGA. it also says vista capable on the unit itself, but they probulary put that to make customers buy them still.

i am really already disappointed that Activesync 4 does not allow wifi syncing...thats one of the reasons I did not upgrade yet to WM5, and now Vista will stop me from using it also...dam it. maybe its better to just stick with XP for now....y do they keep changing things in the OS, windows 95 was the first system I owned and up till today, everything(please dont say it has changed alot and explain, the overall workings are simuliar) has been close resembalance to XP. microsoft just want to make a new pile of CASH for the hell of it.

Darius Wey

11-09-2006, 05:40 AM

ricksfiona

11-09-2006, 07:29 AM

Vista sounds scary....

I'm going to give it a shot by installing it on a separate hard drive... The talk is just making me really curious. It sounds like it cost billions to build Vista... But they could've saved a few 100 million by just making some security upgrades. WinFS, Security and 3-D Interface are the only things I was really looking for... Well, 2/3 isn't too bad.. But for the average user, they won't miss Vista. Vista is reminding me of ME... Now THAT'S scary...

ActiveSync? What the heck is that ;-)

Since I don't have any extra apps on my Smartphone, I don't use ActiveSync. I sync my Outlook via GPRS.... I'm a happy camper. :D

isajoo

11-09-2006, 08:39 AM

come on, u dont know what activesync is, it is very similar to a toilet...its where all the s**t takes place. just read another article about the stickers on pc's that say vista capable/ready... if its capable then it still need something to run smooth,and if it written ready then well its ready. mines say capable...so we will see. also most manufactures are offering vista for next to free if u bought a pc between oct 2006 and march 2007.hopefully they keep their promise.

SteveHoward999

11-09-2006, 02:05 PM

If there's a Vista Capable sticker on it, then it's capable of running Vista (and with your CPU and RAM, it should run reasonably well), though systems without a dedicated GPU will suffer as far as Aero is concerned.

I tested Vista Beta 2 on my Dell Inspiron 1.6GHz Pentium M, 512 RAM, 64Mb graphics, 1600x1200 screen and it ran fine. Slow, but fine. I expect (hope?) that the final version would run a little better, but I won't be installing Vista on that laptop. I'll put Vista on my new one though :-)

Darius Wey

11-09-2006, 02:31 PM

I tested Vista Beta 2 on my Dell Inspiron 1.6GHz Pentium M, 512 RAM, 64Mb graphics, 1600x1200 screen and it ran fine. Slow, but fine. I expect (hope?) that the final version would run a little better, but I won't be installing Vista on that laptop. I'll put Vista on my new one though :-)

Beta 2 had issues. I installed it on my Inspiron (Dothan 1.6GHz, 768MB RAM, 128MB Mobility Radeon 9600 Pro Turbo, 1920 x 1200) and while it worked, it was too slow for comfortable use. RC2 was a different story: fast and stable, even with Aero tweaked to max settings. RTM should offer similar (if not, better) performance to RC2.

SteveHoward999

11-09-2006, 05:16 PM

RC2 was a different story: fast and stable, even with Aero tweaked to max settings. RTM should offer similar (if not, better) performance to RC2.

I still doubt it will work well on teh old Dell though :-) Plus I needed an excuse -- ehem I mean *reason* -- to buy a new toy - oops work machine.

SonWon

11-09-2006, 06:31 PM

I switched to Linux Ubuntu Dapper Drake two months ago and loving it. I do have a Win XP boot parition but only boot into maybe about once every 2 weeks. I only use Win XP for some games but even that is less and less. I am fully happy with Linux and I have so many software choices that are free that it is overwhelming.

I will not be getting Vista or Office 2007. Hmm, I think I justed saved $1500 on the cost to upgrade hardware and software to make Vista work.

SonWon

SassKwatch

11-10-2006, 12:34 AM

Windows Vista marks the start of something new in the world of Windows Mobile, as ActiveSync officially passes the baton on to the Windows Mobile Device Center.

I thought something of a conclusion had been reached that MDC was little more than ActiveStink with a pretty face on it. Is there really something new 'under the covers'?

Darius Wey

11-10-2006, 02:45 AM

I thought something of a conclusion had been reached that MDC was little more than ActiveStink with a pretty face on it. Is there really something new 'under the covers'?

For now, that's all it is (though there are a couple of tweaks to the media syncing capabilities). Anyway, I'm sure it'll actually evolve as time goes on (well, at least I hope so). ;)

SonWon

11-10-2006, 02:58 AM

Typical Microsoft, rather than fix the problems/bugs they move on to a new version. And they often charge you for the new version. They have been doing this ever since Windows 3.11. Oh and don't get me started on Windows CE through Mobile 5, same case.

baralong

11-10-2006, 03:14 AM

OK. I realise I'm going against the trend here, but I've been using Vista (RC1) on my main work laptop for a little over a month now and I really like it.

Yes there is a lot of eye-candy, nice but you don't need it, but I find it much easier to do the things I do most: navigating folders, launching programs, using disparate networks, attatching odd devices.

It's also much more keyboard friendly: <win-key> to bring up the start menu and the search field is active, type in the folder, file or program, hit enter and it's launched. The interface gets out of the way of the more experianced user and the power management is much better.

I even like the switching to admin mode thing, I don't find it too intrusive, I still always click "OK" but at least I won't do something bad by mistake.

It's not all good, I don't like the non cascading "all programs" bugs me, and WMDC is yet to impress me, I haven't found a way to "run as" another user yet and I can't open a tab group from the favourites in the start menu.

I'm a developer living and working in a Microsoft world so I am a bit biased (and the upgrade was inevitable), but all in all I think it's a step up.

My machine is a 1.8Gz Pentium M with 2Gb of memory, Mobility Radeon 9600 (64MB dedicated 127MB shared) running Vista Ultimate RC1 and I get a 2.0 "windows experiance index", seems fast enough.

PS if you are still crying out for active sync over wifi have a read of this (http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsmobile/archive/2006/11/08/wifi-did-you-do-that.aspx) for an explanation

isajoo

11-10-2006, 06:42 AM

well...how may i put this... that blog about wifi activesync is just like when the president of usa said that a war on iraq will end the war against the terrerists...when it was just a excuse to get the land to build pipes for oil...just like microsofts plan to stop free exchange servers over wifi sync. i love wifi syncing and it is done behind a firewall/router/encypted, to access my network, one would have to get by the router, then the software firewall, then look for when i sync with my ppc, with i only use for non business purposes. so why cant they just add the wifi feature but disable it as default? because they like our money more!

baralong

11-10-2006, 03:03 PM

This is a little off topic, sorry.

well...how may i put this... that blog about wifi activesync is just like when the president of usa said that a war on iraq will end the war against the terrerists...when it was just a excuse to get the land to build pipes for oil...just like microsofts plan to stop free exchange servers over wifi sync. i love wifi syncing and it is done behind a firewall/router/encypted, to access my network, one would have to get by the router, then the software firewall, then look for when i sync with my ppc, with i only use for non business purposes. so why cant they just add the wifi feature but disable it as default? because they like our money more!

:?: I'm 'fraid you lost me there. :?:

Is your gripe that you ned to get an aditional client licence for exchange when you sync directly with the exchange server from your PPC? I thought the licences were on a per mailbox basis, but I'm willing to be corrected on that.

What free exchange servers?

Your PPC can still sync directly with any pop/imap server, although that doesn't let you sync calandar and contacts. If bluetooth won't work for you then I can see why you aren't happy with the response from the blog; but I still don't see how Microsoft are making more money out of it.

Further off topic:
Isn't the software firewall on you PC? If you are activesyncing over wifi then all they have to do is get access to your wifi network and sniff for packets. Yes they'd have to get past your router to get into your network from the internet, but what about a car parked outside, side steps the router entirely?

Also worth note that the door was left open to allow wifi activesyc at sometime in the future, it just needs an extra alyer of encryption between the PPC and the PC.

Rob Alexander

11-11-2006, 05:53 AM

possmann

11-14-2006, 07:21 PM

I like Vista - I've been running RC-1 on my tablet for several weeks now and find it to be better to use than XP. Now talk abotu an underpowered machine - It's a 1.4 ghz and only 51MB of RAM - the onboard Intel graphics card can handle Vista but not the Areo interface - despite that, things have been going well except for one "little" part. The Mobile Device Center.

I still have yet to get a succesful sync with my Palm Treo 700W - all the latest patches/updates for WMDC and the Mobile 5 OS's - I cna "force" a sync - kind-of from my Treo, but even that has been less than succesful. Most of the data gets transfered but not all.

I am using Outlook 2007 Beta 2 (updates and all applied) but still - I don;t get it. I'll have to look around this site to see if anyone else is experiencing the same issue. At times the WMDC will recognize that my device is attached - which I find odd because every time I plug the USB cord into the tablet, Vista finds my device and asks me what I want to do with it (open files, media etc... - all but syncing it).

So before I get too off-topic here... Vista is not scary, works great and an improvement over XP.

my 2 cents...

sofene

11-15-2006, 05:38 AM

Darius Wey

11-15-2006, 12:52 PM

Using RC1 I find I can only copy files or sync media files when I connect my mobile devices. Not able to sync with outlook. (I have outlook 2007 beta). Worst, I cannot activate MS Reader on my device as the OS is recognised as "older" than wm 2002. Anyone having these problems with RC1? Or any way to overcome these?

With regard to Outlook 2007 and Windows Vista syncing, it works fine. You may be experiencing issues at the moment, simply because you have beta versions of both products.