Windows Vista Beta 2: The key word is 'Beta'

[Abe_Froeman]

Interesting read.

Windows Vista Beta 2: The key word is 'Beta'
Trials and tribulations with an operating system under development

By Gary Krakow
Columnist
MSNBC
Updated: 8:55 p.m. ET May 23, 2006



I've just spent the past four days living and breathing Microsoft’s Windows Vista Beta 2.

I would like to tell you how easy it was to install and how much fun I’ve had using Vista Beta 2 over the past few days, but I can’t. That’s because the combination of Beta 2 and the laptop computers I tried to install it on was like trying to mix oil and water.

The version of Vista I was testing was given to me about a week before the official Beta 2 release announced Tuesday in Seattle at WinHEC, Microsoft's conference for Windows hardware engineering. I’ve been using what was described to me as a "very near Beta 2." (MSNBC is a Microsoft – NBC joint venture.)

Beta, or pre-release, software is notorious for being... let’s say quirky. I had a feeling going in to this that I might have a few problems to deal with.

The stuff that works on Vista seems to work well. But getting the Beta on to a computer was another matter. Installing Vista Beta 2, for me was one of the worst operating system experiences that I’ve ever encountered.

It took me days to install a working version on a new Lenovo ThinkPad X60 laptop with 2GB of memory and all sorts of built-in wireless networking. I tried installing it as an update to the laptop’s Windows XP — but after four hours of churning away the laptop shut down and wouldn’t reboot.

I tried again on the ThinkPad as a clean install, which meant wiping out everything on the hard drive and starting from scratch. That took about an hour to complete. It also removed every device driver that I needed to run the laptop.

Downloading the drivers from the Lenovo Web site took a long time, but after a while I had downloaded and installed the package. Unfortunately, not everything I downloaded is Vista-ready so rebooting had to occur after every 10 minutes of computer use.

Also, the built-in audio and wireless connectivity devices don’t work. I do have an 802.11b/g PC card that was recognized by the system.


I did try installing Vista on two other laptops. One, it turns out, needs a new Real Time Clock battery (a trip to the manufacturer is needed) and another which had a massive hard drive failure at the beginning of the installation process.

I did not try to install the Vista Beta on the computer I’m using to write this. I'll bet you can figure out why.

After a weekend of frustration — more than 30 hours of my time — and some help from Microsoft — I have Vista almost Beta 2 running (somewhat) on a laptop.

Beta 2 is a good looking operating system with a number of new features, which will be familiar to you if you’ve played with recent versions of Apple’s OS X. And Vista seems to be a competent operating system when it’s running. Here are some highlights in this early version:

A streamlined Start menu.
Instant Search in every Explorer window.
Search Pane lets you organize information by author, date, or type of document.
Windows Sidebar puts frequently used information and tasks right on the desktop. This feature will remind OS X users of that system’s Dashboard feature.
Network Explorer puts all network connections — like printers, other computers, and devices - into one centralized location.
Sync Center helps users manage all their devices from one place.
Tablet PC functionality is integrated into most versions of Windows Vista.
Windows Media Center 11, also standard in Vista, includes live and recorded television, music, photos and videos.
Improved Windows Media Player.
New power management features for mobile computers to optimize battery performance.
Windows Defender regularly scans and removes spyware and other unwanted software.
Classic Windows games, as well as several new ones.

Think of Vista’s new features as similar to what you might find on a new model car — shiny new mag wheels, a finely tuned suspension and a set of high-performance, all-season tires. It still looks like a car and you’re still going to know where the pedals are and how to drive — but you will find that you’ll be able to push it to a new set of higher limits.

The Vista Beta I got to play with over these past few days is definitely a work in progress. Microsoft, though, still has time to improve it. By the time it is released early in 2007, it's likely Vista will be a lot more stable on any hardware you can throw its way.

At least, I hope so.

© 2006 MSNBC Interactive

© 2006 MSNBC.com

Source: URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12932382/

[mnky]

In other words the beta is practically unusable?

[kaioshade]

seems like a step back from previous betas/alphas.

[mnky]

streamlined start menu?

[iball®]

Beta 2 is a good looking operating system with a number of new features, which will be familiar to you if you’ve played with recent versions of Apple’s OS X.
Windows Sidebar puts frequently used information and tasks right on the desktop. This feature will remind OS X users of that system’s Dashboard feature.

Microsoft trying to be Apple and failing miserably at since they're dragging around all that legacy code from the last 10 years.
Apple had zero qualms about taking a 'risk' with OS X, leaving OS 9 behind, and rewriting things from the ground up.
Seems Microsoft can no longer take that risk so they keep slapping more and more junk on a bad codebase.
So far, the only things from MS I've seen re-designed or re-written has been Exchange 2003 and IIS 7.0.
I've got a beta 2 install on a laptop at work and it never gets turned on unless we want to check out a special program on it (like CAC/PKI/SCL) or have to test a website (IE 7).
In it's current state, Vista is pure garbage.
The more crap they pile on it to look like OS X, the more bloated, power-hungry, and unstable it becomes.

[gracz54]

It will be power hungry, that's for sure.
512 MB's of RAM required to install it? No thanks, I don't want my operating system to take half of my memory, while only looking nice.
I don't give a **** about eye-candy, it can look like Windows 95 and I would still use it if it had the same "compatibility" to drivers and such as XP. Because it eats less RAM. (more RAM for games and apps! Yay!)

[cyanide]

all anti-microsoft people here...
can't open my mouth

[gracz54]

Originally Posted by cyanide

all anti-microsoft people here...
can't open my mouth

I don't say that I'm anti-Microsoft.
It's just that they care more about eye-candy than about the speed of the system.

For example.

[FrozenIpaq]

Finally, someone to put it in actual words

Windows Vista is very unstable, has crashed on me too many times to count, and wasn't even properly working with Microsoft Office 2007 Beta / Office 12. It is far from completion. As of right now, the original Windows runs better than Vista

The only reason why Vista stayed on my PC for 1 week, the eye candy. It was just a different experience all together because of the new look. Although, not even XP's top third-party software worked on Vista properly and at times you would have to forfit your Aero Glass theme for the crappy, basic Vista because an application you have running is not compatible with the glass theme.. very disappointing.

Also, my Vista rating (performance) was only about a 3, out of 10 I was assuming (or 5?) I had 1gb RAM, 2.3 (?) ghz processor, and it still ran pretty slow... A machine may be "Vista Compatible" as my laptop as I am typing, but it will be running at a snails pace

[Vanden]

Originally Posted by iball

Microsoft trying to be Apple and failing miserably at since they're dragging around all that legacy code from the last 10 years.
Apple had zero qualms about taking a 'risk' with OS X, leaving OS 9 behind, and rewriting things from the ground up.
Seems Microsoft can no longer take that risk so they keep slapping more and more junk on a bad codebase.
So far, the only things from MS I've seen re-designed or re-written has been Exchange 2003 and IIS 7.0.
I've got a beta 2 install on a laptop at work and it never gets turned on unless we want to check out a special program on it (like CAC/PKI/SCL) or have to test a website (IE 7).
In it's current state, Vista is pure garbage.
The more crap they pile on it to look like OS X, the more bloated, power-hungry, and unstable it becomes.

what do you think of linux

[gracz54]

Originally Posted by beingus?

what do you think of linux

Oh, wonder how I recognized this is vanden...

Nice name change

[Vanden]

Originally Posted by gracz54

Oh, wonder how I recognized this is vanden...

Nice name change

well i one of the very few members with 4000 posts

[Josey Wales]

Windows is like the AOL os the OS's. Most people know about it because of its history and most people use it because its visually easy on the outisde and tends to offer you want you need no questions asks. Then they start to use it more and more and realize that Windows is evil and quite possibly the secular gate to hell. Then theres Mac, make is the broadband connection you get from your phone or cable company - could be any connection higher than dial-up really. Yea you get a great new connection fast and reliable more or less but you dont have what you needed anymore. Suddenly you are in a new environment and you have to adjust.

You cant win either way. Windows is going to be more compatable and more people are going to be used it ot. Mac is going to be more safe but people jsut dont want to make the switch into new terrirtory to basically get the same product with different abilities...

Wella t least thats my analogy.

Im switching to Mac soon anyway...

[cyanide]

thank god. windows can use one less idiot.

[Josey Wales]

Originally Posted by cyanide

thank god. windows can use one less idiot.

One less person tired of Microsoft's security risks isnt going to affect its gigantic user-base of millions of idiots.

[cyanide]

Originally Posted by Dr. Butcher

One less person tired of Microsoft's security risks isnt going to affect its gigantic user-base of millions of idiots.

and just think that you're one of them. anything is only as secure as its weakest point. and generally, its the POS sitting in front of the screen. stop blaming microsoft for your mistakes. you are to blame your own ignorance

[Josey Wales]

Originally Posted by cyanide

and just think that you're one of them. anything is only as secure as its weakest point. and generally, its the POS sitting in front of the screen. stop blaming microsoft for your mistakes. you are to blame your own ignorance

I can admit I was an idiot for ever switching from Mac to Windows so long ago. I get nothing back by lying about switch. My mistakes? Ive jsts reformated my entire drive and im already getting MS's bull****, DLL errors here and there. If Windows was so damn perfect and was OUR mistake they wouldnt need you to update its software CRITICALLY every 2 days. Try reformating and see how many damn updates their are alltogether Service Packs included. A "Service Pack" is just another way of saying "Heres a group of patches for a huge error and flaw we didnt think of or concern ourselves with". ESPECIALLY XP, more like a downgrade to 98 more than anything. A person can only take its user-unfriendliness for so long...

[cyanide]

Originally Posted by Dr. Butcher

I can admit I was an idiot for ever switching from Mac to Windows so long ago. I get nothing back by lying about switch. My mistakes? Ive jsts reformated my entire drive and im already getting MS's bull****, DLL errors here and there. If Windows was so damn perfect and was OUR mistake they wouldnt need you to update its software CRITICALLY every 2 days. Try reformating and see how many damn updates their are alltogether Service Packs included. A "Service Pack" is just another way of saying "Heres a group of patches for a huge error and flaw we didnt think of or concern ourselves with". ESPECIALLY XP, more like a downgrade to 98 more than anything. A person can only take its user-unfriendliness for so long...

patches are a part of every software.
with linux, individual software is updated, so if youre not using it, you wouldnt know about it. i dunno the case with apple but im sure they keep patching their os too.

ive never seen a dll error in my installation. perhaps youre using crappy device drivers or **** apps. and i cant believe you actually said all that stuff about a service pack. service packs contain a lot more than just patches. case in point, service pack 2.

and id rather install a single service pack than 200 standalone patches. there isnt a "CRITICAL" error every 2 days. stop exaggerating.

[Josey Wales]

Originally Posted by cyanide

patches are a part of every software.
with linux, individual software is updated, so if youre not using it, you wouldnt know about it. i dunno the case with apple but im sure they keep patching their os too.

ive never seen a dll error in my installation. perhaps youre using crappy device drivers or **** apps. and i cant believe you actually said all that stuff about a service pack. service packs contain a lot more than just patches. case in point, service pack 2.

and id rather install a single service pack than 200 standalone patches. there isnt a "CRITICAL" error every 2 days. stop exaggerating.

Actually the service pack is barely even a pack. Updating yesterday I had to update 40 different updates named SP 2. They call it a pack and then add on dozens more updates on the side. I dont know about you but I dont enjoy downlaoding and installed 10 updates, restarting, downloading and isntalling another 20, restarting, downloading and installing 1 update, restarting, over and over. And then with the validation crap, took me an hour alone because it kept saying my windows couldnt be validated. Microsoft has got its head so far up its ass it wont let you download updates on your windows unless they can make sure 100% that its a real copy. Headaches... thats all. Im tired of headaches and this and that...

[cyanide]

umm, kid, no validation is required if youre downloading patches. validation is only required if youre downloading other applications like windows media player 11 or ie7.

and if youre tired of doing 10 patches, use autopatcher. it is released every month and contains all the official patches for the previous month.

help is always available, but if you dont ask for it, you aint gonna get it.

[Josey Wales]

Originally Posted by cyanide

umm, kid, no validation is required if youre downloading patches. validation is only required if youre downloading other applications like windows media player 11 or ie7.

and if youre tired of doing 10 patches, use autopatcher. it is released every month and contains all the official patches for the previous month.

help is always available, but if you dont ask for it, you aint gonna get it.

Validation is required when you do it manually, you have to validate your windows one time to download the upgrades. If your validation doesnt go through that one time then you cannot upgrade anything, I think I would know, I went through this process yesterday. Help isnt always available when your computer give you a DLL error when you open up IE, freezes, gives you a blue screen and refuses to boot Windows under 10 minutes. All I get from Windows is a nice little "Well sir your best bet would be to reformat" every single time. I dont get solutions from Windows, i get conclusions.

[cyanide]

Taken from the official Microsoft WGA FAQ:

Originally Posted by Official WGA FAQ

Q: Will users of non-genuine Windows be blocked from receiving security updates?
A: No. Regardless of genuine status, users will not be denied access to critical security updates. Users who have not validated their computers as genuine, however, will not be able to install many updates, including Internet Explorer 7.0 and Windows Defender. Microsoft strongly recommends that users of non-genuine systems correct their problem immediately.

...

[Josey Wales]

I dont care what it tells you, yesterday afternoon while windows update kept telling me my windows wasnt genuine it wasnt letting me update what I had to update...

[iball®]

Cyanide, you don't know a damn thing about security.
I work for the U.S. military as a systems admin for a huge Microsoft-only shop.
The U.S. Army has spent millions and millions of dollars designing special 'hardening' baseline software to lock down Windows XP and Server 2003 and Server 2000.
When I brought a Mac into the shop and asked where to download the baseline for it...
IAPM: "Turn on the firewall, have your IA tech scan the crap out of it and you should be OK."
That's it. And if you don't know what those acronyms mean, then you really don't know information security practices and procedures.
And that Mac? It's a frickin' PPC Mini that's performing live and recorded audio/video streams for over a thousand simultaneous users using multicasting over the networks.
When the advanced tech gurus back in D.C. tried using Windows to do it, it just couldn't hold up and Linux was too command-line oriented for most normal 2210s (unlike me...I swim in it).
The Mini was pretty much plug-n-play, and secure out of the box.
A few tweaks here and there to head off future vulnerabilities, but still 99% plug-n-play.
Don't get me started on Vista...when our IA scanned it remotely, it frickin' CRASHED the box dead.
When an MS rep called a while back and asked if I wanted to help test Office 2007, I asked her about installing it on the Vista box:
MS Rep: "That would not be a good thing, it doesn't run correctly on Vista at the moment."
I hung up on her.

[FrozenIpaq]

Critical Security Updates do not require a valid Windows Copy, but it is required if you wish to do the optional patches, and is highly recommended. Although, there are patches for the validation of your Windows OS (work arounds), but that isn't something we will talk about

[EM1L]

Originally Posted by Dr. Butcher

Windows is like the AOL os the OS's. Most people know about it because of its history and most people use it because its visually easy on the outisde and tends to offer you want you need no questions asks. Then they start to use it more and more and realize that Windows is evil and quite possibly the secular gate to hell. Then theres Mac, make is the broadband connection you get from your phone or cable company - could be any connection higher than dial-up really. Yea you get a great new connection fast and reliable more or less but you dont have what you needed anymore. Suddenly you are in a new environment and you have to adjust.

You cant win either way. Windows is going to be more compatable and more people are going to be used it ot. Mac is going to be more safe but people jsut dont want to make the switch into new terrirtory to basically get the same product with different abilities...

Wella t least thats my analogy.

Im switching to Mac soon anyway...

Your analogy is about 10 years obsolete