Windows Vista SP-2 (Beta)

[Kasracer]

Yes, because it's functionally flawed, they rushed it and sp1 didn't fix much. That being said SP2 could actually make Vista work reasonably but I'm wondering if SP2 was rushed like the whole project's been.

What are you talking about? What's flawed and what needs to be fixed? Vista will work great if you're not running it on 8 year old hardware. I currently have it running on 4 machines and all of them are just as fast as they were with Windows XP. They crash less and are so much more usable (Windows Key + start typing what you want to open = heaven to a keyboard junky).

Windows 7 looks really great but I don't get the whole "negativity" around Vista. Most of it seems to be complete FUD. For instance, many state that Vista uses too much memory but this is not true. Unlike XP where it would just let your memory sit there, unused, Vista actually caches your commonly accessed applications so while my Vista machine with 4GB of ram only has 1.2GB free, it's not wasting memory like XP did. If an application needs the memory it immediately frees it up and overwrites it. When I jump into a game of Team Fortress 2 with my settings cranked up while 3 instances of Visual Studio, SQL Management Studio, IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Zune iTunes, Media Center and Outlook are running my game still loads and runs as fast as it did on XP Pro.

Also, I would hardly call 5 and a half years "rushing" it. Vista had many components re-written to remove old code from the Windows 3.1 days. That's huge and makes updates and other parts of the operating system work much better.

[JuggaloBrotha]

What are you talking about? What's flawed and what needs to be fixed? Vista will work great if you're not running it on 8 year old hardware. I currently have it running on 4 machines and all of them are just as fast as they were with Windows XP. They crash less and are so much more usable (Windows Key + start typing what you want to open = heaven to a keyboard junky).

Windows 7 looks really great but I don't get the whole "negativity" around Vista. Most of it seems to be complete FUD. For instance, many state that Vista uses too much memory but this is not true. Unlike XP where it would just let your memory sit there, unused, Vista actually caches your commonly accessed applications so while my Vista machine with 4GB of ram only has 1.2GB free, it's not wasting memory like XP did. If an application needs the memory it immediately frees it up and overwrites it. When I jump into a game of Team Fortress 2 with my settings cranked up while 3 instances of Visual Studio, SQL Management Studio, IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Zune iTunes, Media Center and Outlook are running my game still loads and runs as fast as it did on XP Pro.

Also, I would hardly call 5 and a half years "rushing" it. Vista had many components re-written to remove old code from the Windows 3.1 days. That's huge and makes updates and other parts of the operating system work much better.

Some people have no trouble at all, but when I gave Vista a try and it doesn't run stably on a 4 Ghz dual core with 4gb ram, what's the point in using it? I also noticed right off the bat that it doesn't like Logitech mice or Hp and Cannon printers, I know MS doesn't care that they're severing compatibility with existing hardware (even though the mouse and printers were purchased 4 months before Vista was purchased), but I can't afford to buy new hardware (again) to run a Mac lookalike.

If Vista SP2 allows my Hp 1006 printer to work on Vista I'll give it a go again, otherwise I'll just wait for Windows 7 inwhich whether my hardware works or not I have a need to upgrade to, I'll probably purchase new hardware when Win7 is publicly released.

[Kasracer]

Some people have no trouble at all, but when I gave Vista a try and it doesn't run stably on a 4 Ghz dual core with 4gb ram, what's the point in using it?

Sounds like you have a hardware configuration issue then. What were the full specs?

I also noticed right off the bat that it doesn't like Logitech mice or Hp and Cannon printers, I know MS doesn't care that they're severing compatibility with existing hardware (even though the mouse and printers were purchased 4 months before Vista was purchased)

Actually, Vista includes more drivers than any previous version of Windows. I've used 5 mice with my Vista machines and never had any issue (I didn't need to install any drivers) (my previous logitech mouse went up and I tried many in search of a good replacement, heh). Actually, how did your mouse not work? I haven't seen a mouse just not work in about 10 years and that was on Mac OS 9.

As for printers most / many work without any driver installation but that support falls on the manufacturer of the printer, not Microsoft. Having said that, I find it hard to believe Hp and Cannon didn't have drivers for your printer. My Vista machines interface, remotely, just fine with my 2 HP printers (1 is about 8 months old, the other is about 4 years old).

but I can't afford to buy new hardware (again) to run a Mac lookalike.

What looks like a Mac and why would you need to buy new hardware? Is it that out dated? What's your configuration? If it's still fairly new then just download the latest drivers and I'm sure it'll work well.

[JuggaloBrotha]

Sounds like you have a hardware configuration issue then. What were the full specs?

That could be, except WinXP and Ubuntu Linux work fine on the system, even after performance tweaks, Vista didn't from the start and I couldn't get it to after playing with it for a few weeks.
I'll post the actual specs this weekend, the system's running XP SP3 at the moment.

Actually, Vista includes more drivers than any previous version of Windows. I've used 5 mice with my Vista machines and never had any issue (I didn't need to install any drivers) (my previous logitech mouse went up and I tried many in search of a good replacement, heh). Actually, how did your mouse not work? I haven't seen a mouse just not work in about 10 years and that was on Mac OS 9.

That may be but when you plug in a Logitec MX518 mouse on WinXP and Ubuntu and it works from the get go then plug it into the vista comp and Vista tells you there's invalid hardware on the system and the Logitec drivers on the vista comp tells me it doesn't find the mouse on the system and I need to plug it in is an indication that vista's not working.

As for printers most / many work without any driver installation but that support falls on the manufacturer of the printer, not Microsoft. Having said that, I find it hard to believe Hp and Cannon didn't have drivers for your printer. My Vista machines interface, remotely, just fine with my 2 HP printers (1 is about 8 months old, the other is about 4 years old).

When installing the printer from the HP installer (after downloading the Vista drivers, because Vista doesn't come with native drivers) and Vista comes up with a blue screen hardware error forcing a restart when the printer works fine on XP and Ubuntu is an indication that Vista's crap.

What looks like a Mac and why would you need to buy new hardware? Is it that out dated? What's your configuration? If it's still fairly new then just download the latest drivers and I'm sure it'll work well.

MS put a lot of work into the UI and while some things work but it looks gay as hell (albeit better than the default XP theme, but XP has more themes now and eventually there'll be a good one for Vista too) and I've noticed it's awfully similar to Mac OS X.