|
Life After Vista
Vista Improvements Over XP
Kernel Stuff Calling Vista "XP with a skin" is like putting a saddle on a truck and calling it a horse. Everything under the hood is different, and is designed to take advantage of hardware trends unimagined back when XP was a just twinkle in NT's eye. Vista's biggest improvement is the most transparent. Hardware virtualization is supposed to be invisible, after all, even to the programs themselves. Very simply, each program is fooled into thinking it has unlimited resources and access to hardware, and then Vista decides how to allocate the computer's finite capacities to each program. This way, each program doesn't have to assess the hardware and find a way to work with the operating system and other programs; every application thinks that it's by itself and has full run of the computer, with Vista orchestrating invisibly. It goes on from there. XP handles separate threads in the heap pretty well, but only really scales when an application multi-threads itself. In other words, multiple cores benefit multiple programs with XP, but only help single applications that are designed for multiple cores from the get-go. Because Vista virtualizes every process, it can tell a single-threaded application that it's got a very powerful processor, while actually running the thread across multiple cores. At least in theory. Developers are only beginning to write for this much-improved kernel, and most applications are only running on Vista as well as they do on XP, because the applications are being run in a virtual XP environment. Of course, what this means is that there isn't a penalty for running applications on Vista, at least on new hardware. Stability and Speed Something I noticed about my XP workstation, which I use for testing hardware, is that it crashes a lot. This didn't strike me as particularly unusual, since I spend a lot of time trying--in effect--to break it, until I started doing the same benchmarking in Vista. What would cause identical XP hardware to blue-screen and reboot, instead got neatly boxed up, flagged by Vista as "problematic", and that was it. The OS kept going. But a lot of these problems are caused by installing and uninstalling drivers. One of the things I have to do before benching any hardware is a clean XP install. Without an empty registry, changing the hardware is the best way to cause instability. On my Vista gaming machine, I have installed and uninstalled the drivers for over a dozen different video cards to date, both ATI and NVIDIA, and haven't detected any bugs, glitches, hangs, boot lag, or crashes. Another noticeable change is the lack of rebooting for updates. My home theater computer is a 24/7 PC and it ran for a solid month before a software update (a monthly video card driver release) required one. One of the highlighted shortcomings of Vista is the long boot times, even though XP takes longer to boot on the hardware available at its release. But it's hard to argue that kind of logic, because no one is forced to use circa-2000 PCs (save for a few unfortunate souls), and booting is a nuisance, and not everyone has the luxury of leaving a computer on all the time. But Vista does this thing: it goes into sleep mode and *gasp* comes back to life. Sure, XP had sleep and hibernate modes, and maybe they worked well for you, but I never once had a computer that could wake up from any half-on mode well. Combined with the infrequent reboots, my laptop gets booted once in the morning and that's that. My gaming computer wakes up and plays games with all the sound and everything working just right. The big stability failing is hardware incompatibility, and it's a problem that will not improve over time. New hardware, and, more importantly, new hardware's drivers, are generally very Vista-friendly, but going back more than a generation has a distinct "I'm running *nix" feel about it. That is to say, installing Vista on my nForce 4 hardware had me swearing and kicking. (Ironically, Ubuntu had no problems with the older hardware whatsoever.) Developers aren't going to spend the money to bring more than a minimum of Vista functionality, and that means, in my experience, mono audio and mouse meltdown. Hardware made before 2006 isn't guaranteed to work perfectly with Vista. The argument against Vista gaming is losing steam. I've shown that there are, on average, no drawbacks to playing games on a Vista computer, and that it only takes good video card drivers to close the gap with XP. Some games ran quite a bit faster on Vista, too, which proves that there is not only nothing about the operating system that causes lesser performance, but that there is quite a bit more headroom for games running on Vista that developers have not yet taken full advantage of. Feature Creep People are right when they say Vista is bloated. Of course, compared to 2000, XP was, too. The first thing I did on my laptop was to take all the Microsoft shortcuts and get rid of them. There are about 20 new little applications that I don't think I've used and have no intention of playing with. (Although I'd be lying if I said I didn't like the new Solitaire.) I also killed the sidebar pretty quickly, along with the OS standby: the Quicklaunch toolbar. Also, I've found that the default, non-classic Start menu was the best, all because of the Searching and Indexing feature set. Quicksilver may have been the first big implementation of desktop searching, but Vista's search has things going for it that seem a little more developed than the others. It's so fast. Files can be searched for immediately when indexing is set to "always on", and they disappear from the results just as fast after they're deleted. Super (Windows key), f: Firefox. Super, p: Windows Media Player...every application and file that I use is right there, no mouse necessary. Options are not in short supply for Searching and Indexing. People who don't want the overhead can turn it all off (but...why?), and it can be tweaked for low- and minimum-power states, confined to specific folders (for people who want to keep some things secret), and generally micro-managed to a degree that most people only find with third-party applications. I can tell you this: Vista Searching and Indexing is way better than Google Toolbar. It all but eliminates the need for a menu system and pre-planned personal file structure. Vista also hides the menubars of most of the Microsoft applications. Instead, it opts to put most of the mouse controls right on the applications that need them. Hitting the alt key pops it up for people who prefer keystrokes. Despite outcries against the bubbly looks of Aero, it strikes me now as being less obtrusive and shows a lot of well-thought planning in its function. Improvements like that are fairly ubiquitous, and the new Network and Sharing Center combines all the separate network connection properties, as well as file sharing stuff, into one tool, the wireless features alone improvement enough to cinch a victory. Vista's wireless connection manager draws a lot from various third-party developers' ideas, but polishes them off with consistency not found with software that has been translated into English. In fact, the only things that bug me about Vista are the constant User Account Control popups, which ask if you're a real person and intend to do what it is that you're trying to do. But there's a handy application that supersedes the messages, without disabling the protection entirely, called Tweak UAC. As far as I'm concerned, it's a critical patch. The other annoyance is the lack of file format support when burning, but BurnCDCC has restored full multimedia support to my Vista machines, even if it is a very lightweight application. Multimedia (Again) Because most people have access to Media Player 10 it should be familiar, and it's not different for Vista. At least it doesn't look out of place. Unfortunately, it still uses the same piss-poor visualizations, and is just as hard (and expensive) to add different visualizations. But the indexing seems to make a difference updating and cataloging the media. It's Media Center that gets the crown. It's come a long way from being a Microsoft alternative to other home theater PC front-ends. The changes aren't in the function of the application; it still works as a TiVo and a movie and music player, with a slideshow and an online media annex. It's the arrangement of the options and comprehensive interface that makes it shine. The application is simple and intuitive to use, and re-arranged so that you know your options at a glance. The fact that the little Windows games have their own Media Center plug-ins is testament to its development from a side project to a fully-grown feature. For the first time this decade, it seems as though Microsoft is actually innovating, rather than emulating, multimedia tools.
Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Why Vista Isn't ME 2.0 Page 3: XP Limitations Page 4: Vista Improvements Over XP Page 5: What Vista Needs, and Who Needs Vista 
Related Articles Editorials August 27, 2009
Editorials August 18, 2009
Editorials March 3, 2009
Editorials February 12, 2009
Add Comment
21 User Comments 1 - Posted by
HCP2
on September 21, 2007 - 3:08 am Reviewer <--- Vista fanboy
2 - Posted by
aireiq
on September 21, 2007 - 8:54 am As long as TTL has one for every OS flavor, it'll be fine. I count a Vista fanboy and an Apple fanboy so far. I wonder if there are plans to hire a Linux zealot or BSD fanboy soon. And what about Plan9? 3 - Posted by
Kurtis
on September 21, 2007 - 12:19 pm I'm a Windows XP fanboy, if that counts for something. And Brian was an Ubuntu fanboy for like... 2 weeks. :-P 4 - Posted by
Rich
on September 21, 2007 - 4:47 pm Win2000 is all the OS you will EVER need! Although I will admit I am running XP at the moment.
5 - Posted by
Bbig
on September 24, 2007 - 9:24 am So biased! Win as Serversoft? You gotta be kidding me! You tell (write) so much, but there are no points you make or give examples! Sum up: Bad article from an Vista Fanboy or payed by very that company! 6 - Posted by
Kurtis
on September 24, 2007 - 10:14 am Yup, that's it. We were "payed" by Microsoft. Next time Max writes an article, I'll have him email you to make sure that you agree with his opinions. If not, then we'll have to change his article to agree with your own personal opinions. How's that sound? 7 - Posted by
Bbig
on September 24, 2007 - 11:17 am I give you an example: On the 5th page "Stability and Speed": He says, that XP crushes on his "workstation". - Eh, Hello? I'm an hardware-enthusiast myself - and XP is stable. And on this paragraph he does _not_ mention, that Vista _has_ speed "failures", or how do you explain, that copying the same file on XP can take to ~60% longer?! - That is what i mean, when i say, it is _so_ biased! ==> Sure, there are some "pro" arguments on Vista, but where are "all" the new kliller-feutures - right, you *hope* they come with SP1... Sry, this is in my opinion bad journalism. 8 - Posted by
Max Slowik
on September 24, 2007 - 12:51 pm > He says, that XP crushes on his "workstation". XP and Vista both crash (just like any OS) but Vista crashes to the desktop while the same tests cause XP to BSOD and reboot. Furthermore, they seemed less frequent while running Vista. This was pretty easy to correlate by looking at my uptime logs. The virtualization and improved driver model really do make Vista run better, where the same practice of swapping hardware in XP makes it less stable, to the point where I constantly have to re-install XP from scratch for benchmarking hardware. > And on this paragraph he does _not_ mention, that Vista _has_ speed "failures", or how do you explain, that copying the same file on XP can take to ~60% longer?! I did, actually, address this. I said that the recent performance/service & reliability updates corrected this, along with the audio glitches. That was, in fact, the catalyst for this article; those were the two primary reasons for hesitance in endorsing Vista. Once they were corrected, or at least the symptoms abated to the point where they were not noticeable, I thought it'd be OK to tell people it was a worthwhile OS. > but where are "all" the new kliller-feutures - right, you *hope* they come with SP1... Even without them, I'd still use Vista; for me the real killer feature is the searching and indexing, with DX10 close behind. I do expect them to be in SP1, because they're a part of the SP1 beta right now. > Sry, this is in my opinion bad journalism. This is an editorial, just take it for its face value. One of the things I stressed, and continue to argue, is that Vista will only run well on hardware made with Vista in mind. It, in every case where I tried to install it on older hardware, hardware that far and away exceeded Vista's requirements, didn't run well at all. Still, it was much easier for me to switch over to Vista than from XP to XP x64, which was probably because of the fact that x64 didn't bring any new features, just incompatibility. Such is the nature of being an enthusiast; the willingness to accept problems in the face of being an early adopter. Sometimes this is disastrous, often it's merely painfully disruptive. But I'd rather be an early adopter than accept the popular standard. Switching to Vista was far from cut-and-dry, but once I got it right, it became clear to me that it's a more featured, polished, and modern OS. 9 - Posted by
Rich
on September 24, 2007 - 8:04 pm Since when do we get "payed"??? I have been doing this for free all this time???
10 - Posted by
Brian
on September 26, 2007 - 9:27 am When do you get paid... when do I GET PAID??!!?!?!? If we're sellouts like what's-his-face says, I want my cut first! 11 - Posted by
Rich
on September 26, 2007 - 12:28 pm Oh come on, what do you REALLY do anyway.....IF selling out was an option how comes I am just hearing of it??????
12 - Posted by
BCSchnei
on September 27, 2007 - 4:14 am I always find it funny that some of the most fanatical people are the first to label someone else a FanBoy if they don't agree with them. Like it really matters. If someone likes a product for whatever reason, then I would say they ARE a fan. So what, is that a bad thing!? I think a persons preference to a OS is highly dependent on what they want to do with their computer. In my case I use it for browsing, email, some music and video tasks, capturing pictures from my camera and play games. For me being able to play the latest kick ass FPS, RTS, or RPG I only have one choice in OS's and that is Windows. I know it’s possible to get other OS's to play games. But that takes work, I already work in the IT industry and have to solve software and system problems all day. When I get home I don't want to have to monkey around for an hour or more to get to be able to play the game I just bought, or have to wait months or years for someone to make a port. Screw that! I just want the damn thing to work, and I find that Windows works best for me and the things I want to do. Now there are many people out there who don't play games so that may make a different OS a better option. Good for them! I loaded Vista about 3 months ago. I have to agree with Max, it is a very nice OS, but not without its problems. The UAC is rather annoying at first, but after 3 months of use and having all my day-to-day software installed, it rarely pops up anymore. I have had a couple of old programs that I haven't been able to get to work, but I'm ok with that. I probably really need to upgrade that old Broderbund landscaping program from 1995 anyway. It is also a little annoying trying to find where some of the admin tasks are now located, but that is just a little learning curve and I am fine with that. If that scares you then don't use Vista. Even with these issues, I still have no plans on ever going back to XP on my home computer, in fact I have started upgrading my kids' system so that I can take advantage of the built-in Parental Controls that Vista offers. I also really like some of the new troubleshooting and monitoring tools. I have had less problems with this upgrade then I did going from 95 to XP. Nice article Max. I’m glad to see a review that is something other than just performance problems on old hardware and a list of issues that some whiney reviewer had getting a driver for a old scanner or camera to work. Ben 13 - Posted by
Rich
on September 27, 2007 - 3:01 pm Now if you could just get a Site license for Vista, I might consider changing...
14 - Posted by
Max Slowik
on September 27, 2007 - 4:49 pm "Nice article Max. I’m glad to see a review that is something other than just performance problems on old hardware and a list of issues that some whiney reviewer had getting a driver for a old scanner or camera to work." Thanks. I know I said it, but I'm right there with you with just wanting my computer to work; I knew I wasn't alone. 15 - Posted by
Reflex
on November 30, 2007 - 5:24 am Max - Just wanted to point out that Monad has already been available for a while now. Monad was the code name for PowerShell, and Vista versions of it are up on the Microsoft website. It is not getting integrated into Vista, although it will be integrated into Windows Server 2008. Go check it out, its worth the download. As for WinFS, it is not in the SP1 release and at this time is not scheduled for any Windows release. The last statement made about it was back in 2006, and its dev team was essentially folded into the SQL team. It may make a comeback, but it won't be during the Vista timeframe unfortunatly. 16 - Posted by
Max Slowik
on November 30, 2007 - 7:56 am I've been slowly learning how to use Monad, even back when I was rolling XP x64, and I know it's been available for a while as an option. But I had no idea WinFS got dropped that hard. That's a real loss. I'm going to look into this some. 17 - Posted by
Reflex
on December 6, 2007 - 12:11 am The official list of Vista SP1 updates/additions is up. I'd post a link but the forum software won't let me. DailyTech has a news article up about it now...
18 - Posted by
Kurtis
on December 6, 2007 - 4:36 pm Yeah you have to be registered to post links. Here's the DailyTech link: http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+to+Target+Pirat...
19 - Posted by
ND06
on December 10, 2007 - 4:48 am Max, about WinFS, you can find a good FAQ on the WinFS blog that was posted last June. Since I cannot post a link, search "msdn winfs" on Google and it should be the first result.
20 - Posted by
Kurtis
on December 10, 2007 - 1:28 pm Here's the link ND06 mentioned... http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/archive/2006/06/26/648... 21 - Posted by
aln12483
on January 9, 2008 - 12:29 am Well written article and all of my hesitations regarding the upgrade to Vista has been shed :) Add Comment To add a comment without being a member, you may omit the password field, but you must enter your name (or nickname) along with your comment. * Denotes required fields. |
Recent Reviews Video Cards September 23, 2009
Gaming Devices July 17, 2009
Portable Media Players July 16, 2009
Thumb Drives July 14, 2009
Recent News VICE Nov. 20, 2009 - 7:17 pm
Wired Nov. 20, 2009 - 7:07 pm
Engadget Nov. 20, 2009 - 6:58 pm
Telegraph.co.uk Nov. 20, 2009 - 6:48 pm
BBC Nov. 20, 2009 - 6:38 pm
Destructoid Nov. 18, 2009 - 11:55 pm
Wired Nov. 16, 2009 - 11:56 pm
Ultimate Typing Championship Nov. 16, 2009 - 11:42 pm
|
|||||||||||||||
