Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Is Windows Vista ready for you?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Regardless of how much the vendors are to blame, and how much MS
> | is, the Vista Upgrade Advisor is sure to be a marketing fiasco.
> | Ideally, it should be a tool to help consumers choose an edition
> | of Vista that will work for them, and reassure them that they can
> | upgrade if they want to, without having to buy new equipment.
> | Instead, it demonstrates nothing so much as the fact that Vista
> | is still half-baked. No one is going to buy it if they sense
> | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | that it's not ready to run their machines and applications
> | smoothly. And yet, that is the distinct impression that the
> | Advisor utility gave me.
> |
> | I'm quite ready for Vista, as most users are. The real
> | problem is that, this late in the game, Vista doesn't
> | appear at all ready for us.
> `----
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/29/windows_vista_still_not_ready/
>
I have to say that from my own experience, this is very much the case,
though I'm not its a completely fair assessment.
I've been running Vista for some time now, since it's in my (and my
company's) best interest to understand it thoroughly. Currently,
in its release form, it's actually pretty damn nice.
But it's nowhere near ready for common use.
There are some major problems with legacy, non-microsoft programs.
Many XP/2000 drivers refuse to work under Vista, and its security
layout is a nightmare to deal with if you want a computer with something
resembling useful network functionality. Its really no faster than
XP was, though it does seem to manage memory a little better and protect
the system from monstrous, badly written resource hogs like Thunderbird
and Firefox.
Its pretty slick looking too, and the Aero interface really is lovely--
but its nothing that anyone whos run windowblinds and windowfx (yay
stardock) hasn't seen before. Functionally it's more useful, but
compiz/beryl have much more useful options---however Aero for its
somewhat lukewarm usefulness is at least far more stable than
compiz/beryl. Which, I understand, won't be for long.
On the machines on which I MUST run windows, I'm not upgrading to
Vista. XP runs everything I need it to with the exception of the
upcoming DirectX 10 games, but really who cares. Server 2003 is
stable and feature-rich enough for anyone, and its crap security
can be solved with a good external firewall.
Of course, the mission-critical stuff runs on FreeBSD-STABLE and
Solaris, and it probably will for a good long time.
-----yttrx
--
http://www.yttrx.net
|
|
