To counter the flagging expectations around Windows Vista, Microsoft added a last-minute keynote this morning from Mike Nash, Corporate Vice President Windows Product Development, at this year’s WinHEC, the Microsoft Windows Hardware Engineering Conference in Los Angeles. Nash used his 30 minutes to talk about the number of device drivers included in the Windows Vista box and available online, and also about the number of compatible or certified for Vista hardware products on the market 100 days after release. While the numbers are high–certainly higher than 100 days after the release of Windows XP–many feel they should be higher. Nash said that vendors are continuing to work with Microsoft on this. “Windows Vista gets better over time,” Nash concluded.
On Monday, Microsoft employees bristled at comments from the press that users were unhappy with Windows Vista. With regard to User Account Control (UAC), Nash told reporters that “the process is the same in (Mac) OS X.” He recounted how his wife recently bought a HP printer, and UAC had asked permission to install the driver. Being a second user on the system, she needed Nash’s password to proceed. Nash said that he later installed the same printer driver on a Mac. “It asked the same question,” he said. However, the Mac elevated the user’s privileges across the board, while Windows only elevated the user’s installation privileges.
On Tuesday, Microsoft provided figures from IDC predicting a strong adoption rate in 2007 for Windows Vista and the new Windows Server 2008 . IDC predicts that by the end of the year, 90 million copies of Windows Vista should be installed, and 35 million within the United States. By the end of 2008, that number is predicted to be 150 million worldwide, and 68 million within the U.S. That may be true, but an informal “over-the-survey” of WinHEC 2007 attendees showed most were still using Windows XP.
Most were still using Windows XP? Hmmmmm…
From CNET.
I’m looking forward to some future date when I can stop instinctively hating Vista and start getting on board… It’s the same process I went through when XP came out…
Except this time, there isn’t anything new that I need whereas XP really was notably better than 9.x
Hell, if I weren’t a gamer, I’d still use 2K
Microsoft Vigorously Defends Vista
Tony Snow will be perfect for the job Microsoft spokesman once the Chimp in Chief is out of office.
Can anyone give me ONE good reason to switch? I can’t find one?
#3 – vista is supposed to be *prettier*
#4 – It won’t be after I finish turning off all the “pretty” features and make it look like 2K sans wallpaper…
I keep my desktop simple and totally without icons.
I bought a computer with Vista installed and have not been impressed. Compatibility is a big issue, and the thing runs slower than XP on a dual core computer that shipped with it. I wouldn’t try an upgrade for at least 6 more months until the industry catches up with the OS.
I just read last night that Bill Gates says Vista has sold over 40 million copies already. Much faster than he had hoped. They were looking for sales of I think he said 55 million?….by the end of the year, so he was very happy.
I’ll try to find the story and link it.
I’ve been using Vista for a couple of months and I love it. It is a lot more pleasing to use than XP, just from a usability standpoint. Two minor things I like, Alt-Tab includes the desktop and the new “Start Menu’ box that allows you to type what you want and it is instantly displayed. No more Start > All Programs > Folder > Program or in the case of a Mac, Finder, Applications, Scroll through and find the program amongst hundreds of other files. I have not had any problems with the programs and devices that I use. All the drivers I need were either included with Vista or were available for download. As far as being pretty, Vista has it in spades, it isn’t something I look for, but it is nice.
This isn’t the story I read last night, but I can’t find that one. But this is what the story last night was based on. Here’s the link.
http://tinyurl.com/28zmll
(Please use tinyurl.com for long URLs. – ed.)
I’m with #1…not enough reason to make the switch for me. As some people have commented in other stories lately, everyone complains about new stuff, and eventually adopts it. Well…I remember Dos 4 and 5 to Dos 6 – a number of new features. Dos to Windows 3.1…..pretty big switch. Win 3.1 to 95/98 – some big improvements. I then went from 98 to XP, and I was happy with the improvements, though I could have easily went with 2000 and been happy. Now though…I just don’t see enough solid reasons..prettier is irrelevant to me. I like lean, speedy, uncluttered. I like to get the most from my machines for the longest, so I won’t have to spend more money to upgrade.
Compatibility is a significant issue. I purpose-built a dual-core 64-bit machine to run my eval copy of Vista Ultimate, and it worked fine until I loaded some unsupported DVD burner software (I haven’t found a third-party burner that is supported) the incompatibility was so bad the computer stopped recognizing the drives and USB ports. I’m still trying to get the machine working properly. A Microsoft tech even took over the machine to attempt to get it to recognize just the DVD drive and the fix killed Tunes. More to follow when I finally get it all sorted out.
Smartalix- yes, I had some problems with the evaluation copy too. They went away when I installed a finished version. There is a reason they call it an evaluation. I am frankly surprised MS Tech Support would help you with that. Also, (and you probably already know this) there is compatability mode for unsupported SW. Thirdly, a trick I found about installing drivers for hardware that supposedly wasnt supported, was to not used the installation software, but download the driver and have device manager install the driver instead.
Blah blah blah. This is XP all over again.
Vista is better, and its not just the GUI.
And in 4-5 years we’ll have hardened vista uses complaining that windows 2010 offers nothing, and breaks their favorite obscure program from 5 years ago, and runs slower, and they’ll just stick with Vista thank-you-very much.
The tech world has such a short memory.
Most computer users use their powerful high end computers for little more than playing solitaire.
Is there not a better explanation why there has not been a high and a cry about Microsoft Vista ?
Other than a few experienced computer users who need to be knowledgeable about the product and have some practical experience of Vista for tech support reasons most experienced users have stayed shy of the vista product still satisfied with Microsoft Windows XP.
Is it Microsoft Vista or Microsoft Windows Vista ? After all it is a GUI windowed environment.
12,
Thanks for the tips, and you’re right but I’m deliberately working with what they gave me.
13,
As I pointed out above, I’m working with what they gave me. I am sick and tired of Microsoft using the marketplace to fix their shit. I am being bloody-minded and gritting my teeth through this. They are free to send me somehting better anytime, I am a registered press evaluator. That they have not to date does nothing to endear me to them.
14,
I am a power user, who wishes he could edit video, modify a website, and edit images while filing stories simultaneously. If a 64-bit dual-core system can’t do it with Vista why the fuck is it even in my machine?
Once you add up the cost of devices that are not supported in Vista, incompatible software that needs a new-generation replacement, plus the cost of Vista itself, this can end up being a very costly upgrade for some people. Don’t forget to add in the value of the time required to make it all happen.
I guess Grandma doesn’t really need that new hip after all. It’s not like she still plays soccer 😉
And just for the record, I’m not suffering from “I hate anything new” syndrome. My basic test installation was painless, and I went on to quickly find and disable the more useless, power-robbing features (very similar to XP). After that, the basic UI seemed rather unsucky, although I still don’t see any features remotely compelling enough to go through the pain and expense of anything more than a test. Oh, and does the new EULA count as a feature or a bug?
smartalix,
Well I think I found your problem. Unless you have some bit of software that requires 64bit windows, you should be using 32bit windows. 64bit windows is a little over the side of the bleeding edge.
If it helps, you gain nothing by using a 64 bit operating system other than access to more than 4 gig of ram… Overall, it isn’t going to operate any faster.
Also once again(it needs repeating) 64bit windows is a total waste unless you have some applications that says it needs 64bit windows.
#13…since I just got done mentioning Dos 4 in my earlier post (and I could take things back to other platforms, Commodore Pet, Apple II/II+/IIe, etc, and I’m sure there are other users out there that could go further back), perhaps not all of us have short memories. I quite enjoyed going from 98 to XP…I didn’t have the ‘hate new’ syndrome. As I said before, I personally don’t see enough of an upgrade for what I do for Vista to be worthwhile. I think Microsoft is pushing XP into the trash much faster than they did with 98/2000, and that is annoying. You are certainly entitled to your opinion that Vista is better, but perhaps you could share some reasons why you feel it is better
I’m very happy with my Mac. By the way, I run Vista in Parallels. It’s OK, but I see no reason to upgrade from XP.
[deleted for violation of guidelines]
What is really astounding is Mike Nash’s wife is using a Mac!
That’s a kick in pants if I ever saw one to Microsoft.
Hey, if I worked for Ford I would be driving a Ford. I probably wouldn’t be but you get my point. I think Mr. Nash might need some help talking his wife into using windows.
I don’t know where these numbers are coming from. Personally I have dozens of friends that work with computers and know many more that have them at home and of all these pc’s I know only one person that has Vista installed and that’s because he ‘sells’ it at a corporate level. I have a weekly program on FM radio dedicated to PC’s and internet and took a survey of stores in my city, the actual sales of Vista are very low, yet apparently new PC sales have been rather good of late (low priced laptops) and the lionshare of Vista liscenses have gone this route. Leave it to Microsoft to cook the numbers… They can afford to be patient and wait for it to sell. After all they say there’s one born every minute.
Everyone missed the point completely. Who is the woman in the picture?
Is that better?
I’ve been messing with Vista on a new Intel DG965SS mobo. Vista runs fine, but the surprise is that the aero interface actually works great with the integrated video! (1024 x 768) No idea how this mobo stacks up for gamers, but for office apps it appears to be a bargain.
BTW, how many of you with Vista have tried “Windows key + tab” for task switching? Cool, but not a reason to upgrade. The new start menu is far better than the default in XP, but I’m not sure I like it either.
Icons changed for no reason, shapes all different for no reason, lots of colors that easily fool the eyes, rather than shapes that become quickly intuitive. I get the feeling that most of us here feel the same way about that stuff.
24. pedro- “you want to do all that, i.e. video editing, websight design, and image manipulation simultaneously, you might need a high end workstation and not just some home built box with generic hardware. Just running XP isnt the answer. The right tools for the job are required.
#24,
I was reading about memory issues and Vista 32bit vs 64bit last night when I wrote that. I suspect that a patch to vista at some point will introduce a segment offset memory scheme to allow 32bit vista to use more than 4 gig of ram. The shift to 64bit computing simply is not happening right now, as far as I can tell.
Also at winHEC they announced that longhorn would be the last 32bit product they would release. IMO that means to me that MS wont be mainstreaming 64bit support for at least another 2 years.
17, 24, 27,
That’s why I’m doing this, to evaluate Vista in a 64-bit system. If it is useless, why are they selling it? If we do not explore the possibilities of a system we learn nothing.
Mark, the system I built uses an AMD dual-core 64-bit processor, AVUS gaming motherboard, 2 gigs of RAM, a 500-Gig HD, and a HIS Hightech Radeon 256MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 IceQ3 Turbo HDCP VIVO Video Card. Are you telling me that’s inadaquate for graphics-intense multitasking?
29. No that should be quite sufficient, but you are still using a beta copy. And that is quite a bit of multitasking you are trying to accomplish. With due respect I think you expectations are a bit high given the task and an test copy of Vista. . And GregA makes a valid point. I love to experiment also but when it fails, its time to adjust, take a different path, right? I think its an monumental effort to release a OS like this and expect it to be compatible with everything out there, Mac couldnt do it in a million plus years, its kind of what makes PC’s special, we can experiment, they cannot. XP had some of the same problems, they were worked through, and this will be too.
#29,
Do you have any software that says “designed for 64 bit windows”? If not, you are getting no benefit from 64bit windows.
The ONLY thing that 64bit windows gives you is access to more than 4gig of ram on the computer, and individual threads can access more than 2gig of ram. That is it, nothing else. Performance wise, a 64bit computer is going to be 5-10% slower than a 32bit computer. There is a bit of a myth floating around that a 64bit computer is somehow going to be twice as fast. Not true. I have not read the technical specifications of CPU’s in some time, but I suspect all the consumer grade CPU’s are still optimized for 32bit computing, that is they support a 64bit instruction set, but really all the hardware on the chip is designed for 32bit streams of data.
If you were running a CAD CAM workstation, with a datafile bigger than 2 gigabytes, and also had the very very expensive cad software for that scale of computing, you would see some benefit.
If you were running a SQL database that needed an extremely high amount of concurrency, while simultaneously allowing hundreds or thousands of discrete connections(you are a national bank or airline), you could exploit a 64 bit operating system…
If you were working in law enforcement, and you needed to process facial recognition software realtime on dozens of video streams…
Something with very humble needs like HD video editing is currently better accomplished on 32 bit windows(or OSX). ()
The problem you are having is that you have selected the wrong OS. You need a 32bit version of windows. You only have 2 gig of ram so you have no need of 64bit windows.
Also… Someone else said it, not me… unless you really know what you are doing, no you are not going to just throw together a workstation class machine with easy to find off the shelf parts. Instead, you are going to look at the 64bit OS’s HCL and buy parts exclusively from that list. Better yet, you should find a company that makes workstation class machines for the particular application, and buy from them. For example, while every other part of your computer looks fine, it doesn’t looks like your video card is on the Avid Xpress Pro HCL (but neither is 64bit windows, it calls for XP Pro)