So How Does The Latest Vista Build Hold Up? -What They Don't Want You To Know-

Kschreck

Kschreck

Newbie
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
926
Reaction score
0
winVista_logo.jpg



System We Tested It On:

Server With 2 Dual Processors Running At 2.1GHZ Each
1 Gigabyte of Corsair Memory
ATI X800 Radeon 256MB Ram


So out of bordom I figured I would try out the latest build of Windows Vista. Here is what I learned from it and what you will want to know after a couple hours of handson time.

The Good:


Windows Vista looks nice. Very crisp and graphical. Lots of little details went into making this OS pretty and it shows. Slick design throughout. At a first glance any Windows fan will fall in love but was it meant to be?


Installation:


Windows Vista started with the old black and white install screen. It then got to the screen where you enter the usual functions. You type them in and it starts to install. This is where the many bugs start rolling in. First off during the process you have to reboot 3 times. On the first boot the screen flickers and all these graphical errors come up. You then continue the install process. However it labels as "Starting installation" rather then "Continuing Installation". Some more reboots and then you get back into the the install process. Whats this? The install bar starts going off the screen...

So after the two hour (Yes two hour) install your in. BTW it appears that they have removed the reboot button. You only get the Shutdown button. So we get into the operating system and the screen is messed up and out of sync with your monitor. It did not detect video or sound card or network card or even my brothers processor. Instead he got Chinese fonts. YES Chinese fonts. Oh and I turned the GUI off to the original Windows 95 theme and the lowest I could get the memory down was

Here are some pictures of the bugs:


http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b51/Kschreck19/Bug1.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b51/Kschreck19/Bug2.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b51/Kschreck19/Bug3.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b51/Kschreck19/Bug4.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b51/Kschreck19/Bug5.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b51/Kschreck19/Bug6.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b51/Kschreck19/Bug7.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b51/Kschreck19/Bug8.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b51/Kschreck19/Bug9.jpg


The mouse lags as bad as if you where playing a game getting less then 10FPS. It's really slow. I would classify it as not usable on my brothers server computer. It took a couple minutes just to boot into the operating system. I know many of you will think I am just trying to flame Microsoft and promote Linux or something but all I can say to you is download and install it for yourself. I guranteed everyone one of you will agree with me. Microsoft is suppose to launch this in August and I guranteed most of these bugs will not be worked out. Even CD burning is broke. Internet and network was broke for us and wouldn't even display the options for installing it. Opening a folder takes about 25MB's of ram or more. Small Windows Games took 50MB - 200MB and I am talking games that should take no more then 5MB. Screensavers as shown in the box above where mostly broke and just gave errors. I tried to format a disc and all it did was blinking on the CD-RW drive and just died and continued to do that until we rebooted. Oh and the clock doesn't work. We set it for Eastern time (Daylights Saving Time Turned ON) and it was off by three hours. We even double checked it. Media Center didn't even work and said trial expired. Looking through the programs almost all the programs where the same including the Windows 3.1 Paint and Calculator. Solitaire had some diferent backgrounds but thats it. Took over 60MB to run that. There was only two themes to choose from. Regular and none. The entire system ran worst then I would have ever thought and if anyone knows of a way to take videos I will do it to prove. Five years and instead of fixing things almost every program was broke in some way. I guranteed even the biggest Microsoft fans will be disapointed and I can't wait to see how bad games are going to run. It takes several seconds just to open folders up and to make things worst in order to get to your Task Manager you have to hit Ctrl Alt Del and then select it in a slow loading list of other tasks. It really bother me as it slowed everything down. The lowest I got the OS to run was at 439MB's with all graphical features to turn off. Opening a small game made the memory go up to 706MB and 42% CPU usage. I thought Windows XP was slow but this OS is at LEAST 4 complete times slower. It's unusable and if it's anywhere as slow at launch it will quickly die and recieve horrible reviews. I seen recent tech demos of new GUI features in Novell Linux and it was not slowed down at all. Everything ran perfectly and fast. If anyone has any questions just ask.


---Note Made In Another Post-


If that 2D SNES graphics game takes 706MB then I can guranteed that you will need at least 2gigs to play Halo 2 and probably the same 2gigs to play any old DirectX9/8 games since they will be emulated which slows down the performance immensely. I had people tell me that this is only going slow because it's a beta. NONSENSE. I have seen XP betas from a year before release and they ran almost at the same speed of the released version. The final Vista WILL run this slow. Read my review of the December beta in the link above. Thats before I took the DVD and tossed it into the trash.
 
lol, awsome post, sort it out microsoft! youve got enough bloody money too.

I really hope your wrong Kschreck and this is just some gay beta version youve got.

and wtf is up with that random CPU usage. lawl

Bug9.jpg


... Solution found! ... calling Bill Gates ...
 
so you saying the "beta" version got "bugs" ?
oh noes....
 
Oh well, you can always leave it on desktop and show it off to your friends :E

"NO TOUCHING!! Get the **** away from my computer!"
 
lol I deleted the OS and disposed of the DVD. That build was from December. I have never seen or even imagined that an OS would run so slow. It ran about as fast as running Windows XP on a 200MHZ or lower. Even when you open a folder you can see the special effects lag. Ever buy a game that runs extremely slow on your system and the menu systems ran real slow and the mouse was laggy? Well that was the experience with Vista I had.
 
But that computer seems to inherently suck at most everything Kevin when it should be really good.
Still, I really don't like Vista anyways so if it sucks than that's all the better for XP.
 
1.) There are few DRIVERS for VISTA, the ones that are out there are crap.
2.) Just because Xp ran almost as fast as it did a year before it was released what DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? Seriously. Xp isn't as near as big of a leap as Vista is. Vista is still A LONG WAYS AWAY.
Anyone that honestly believes this is how fast Vista will run, and this is how well Vista will work you should be ignored and jailed up. It's a beta. A beta with no anywhere near the word "crap" drivers, in other words all the drivers for it are "Ultra-****ing-Useless-Crap" Drivers. A Beta for an OS coming out in what? 2007! You critize it on so much, you act like it's a full complete OS and now MS is done with it and is just waiting until hardware catches up before they release it.

You critize it on not being able to find Network-Connections out of the box? Why? THE OS IS NOT DONE YET. It's not ANYWHERE NEAR DONE.
 
Yes, They built Vista from scratch, not like XP which was upgraded version of the older versions.
 
How did they build it from scratch if the main GUI is still the same from Windows 95 when you turn off the Vista GUI? They did not build it from scratch. Check through the files and you will see it's almost all the same old stuff.
 
Kschreck said:
How did they build it from scratch if the main GUI is still the same from Windows 95 when you turn off the Vista GUI? They did not build it from scratch. Check through the files and you will see it's almost all the same old stuff.
Click to expand...
thats what i heared
 
hah, lie some more, please ?

i installed the same ctp have had only a few problems and my installation was around 50 mins, when it is rtm installation will be even less.

the performance on my system ? smooth and almost no issues, and on tech sites people have said the same thing.

it sounds like you either suck, or are having hardware compatabilitiy issues, that's it.

they did build it from scratch, with a complete new backend [avalon and other apis], but it is now scalable, something mac users have [apparently] enjoyed for awhile, so if you have a slow system, more and more gui things will get turned off, eventually leaving you with the 'classic' theme.

those features you saw of novel were just that, only gui features not a full blown os, and you don't think they took the time to make it run perfect, like with all the gui demos of vista, they run perfect, buddy.

when they released the dec ctp ['fake' beta 2] they received only '10,000 or so' reports instead of '100,000 or so reports' with the xp beta.

it's not suppose to launch in august, again with the lies mate.

don't complain about memory usage, it's a beta and has a load of debugging, logging and other services running.

If that 2D SNES graphics game takes 706MB then I can guranteed that you will need at least 2gigs to play Halo 2 and probably the same 2gigs to play any old DirectX9/8 games since they will be emulated which slows down the performance immensely. I had people tell me that this is only going slow because it's a beta. NONSENSE. I have seen XP betas from a year before release and they ran almost at the same speed of the released version. The final Vista WILL run this slow. Read my review of the December beta in the link above. Thats before I took the DVD and tossed it into the trash.
Click to expand...
again with the lying and spreading fear, is it fun or something ?

and it's a freaking beta, i'd be scared if there were no bugs.

try judge the beta2 [commmunity and developer versions] coming out in about a month, or, let's do the sensible thing and judge the final product on the final product.

and what's all this 'what they don't want you to know' rubbish ?

here's a copy of a post i've made countless times.

1. Security – One can never have enough (unless it hampers usability, of course) especially in today’s world of Viruses, Worms, Trojans, Malware, Phishing and SPAM. In Vista, an extra-ordinary focus has been given to security. Improvements around reducing attack surfaces, threat modeling, User account protection (UAP, also known as LUA) – (and much more) have gone into making existing features a lot more secure. But there is a more – new firewall, Windows defender, low-rights IE, enhanced smartcard support for winlogon, Full volume encryption, improved EFS , support for stronger crypto algorithms, support for federated identities using Infocards, new authorization manager (AzMan).
2. User experience – Glass (it looks swell), desktop gadgets and sidebar (for the gadget freaks like me), WMP 11 with a very clean UI and amazing library support, support for auxiliary displays, Media Center (this has to be seen, words don’t do enough justice), etc.
3. Information organization and retrieval - Search (much faster and granular than what MSN and other DS offer), virtual folders, integrated RSS, improve file metadata, etc. Search is critical because it is not just a feature. It is ingrained in the whole Vista shell experience. So its there in the start menu, in control panel, in windows explorer, in IE.
4. Performance - improved network and audio stack. Support for USB device to increase virtual memory (this is a killer feature given the fact that USB 2.0 drives are so cheap)
5. New application platform - Winfx, Avalon, Indigo, Metro (and XPS) - PDC2005 for tons and tons of developer-related info
6. Games – 3D chess looks delicious but again it is the work in the gaming platform that’s more importantly. Xbox 360 will rock the console world (its launching on my birthday, so you guys know what i want as a gift :) ) but Vista will have a lot in store for gaming on Windows
7. IE7 - if you have got your hands on the CTP builds, you will know how vastly different this is from IE6 – quick tabs, RSS, improved printing, standards support. Check out IE Blog for more.

there is an incredibly simple (and quickly written; author says 15 mins) 'seven reasons why to switch' - not written by myself.

here is another quick list of new things (not detailed):
- new networking stack for performance.
- new audio stack.
- new fonts and readability technology.
- completely new kernel with massive changes.
- new print technology.
- new installer and deployment technology.
- new crypto technology.
- new rss support.

i'm still not covering everything.

go watch the videos on channel9.msdn.com too.

wrong forum too, hardware and software anyone ?
 
At the time that I wrote the article it was set for an August released and has recently been pushed up to December. Other then that no information I provided was fake. I can only encourage users to try it out themselves. It ran horrible for me and I used regular hardware such as an ATI X800 256MB video card, 1 gig of corsair brand memory, 2 AMD processors, Sound Blaster Live audio card. Don't call me a liar. Also the version I used said Beta 2 version 5270.
 
I'm sure those problems will be fixed by the time it releases this Fall.
 
It's a BETA there will be bugs. Like its been said there is hardly any driver support for windows vista. Plus its not like your system is omfgsuperhighend. It's a 64-bit operating system which means it will need double the resources. I know most people use 512mb of ram at the moment. (2 x 512 = 1024) but to be honest it'd probably run way better with 2gigs of memory.

I know what you're saying though. A lot of people will have to upgrade if they want to run windows Vista. Just don't start knocking the operating system while its in its BETA stages just because its a Microsoft product... :)
 
The good side: It's a beta

The bad side: You said you've seen XP betas a year before launch run at nearly the same speed as the final....lets hope these get fixed...and quick....I'll be sure to read the review of windows vista before I decide to buy it just after the launch.
 
it's 32bit and 64bit.

xp beta's weren't running, near, or at the same speed as the final.

if you want a real [decent], unbiased review from someone who has a clue, read paul thurrot's @ winsupersite.com (yes, domain sounds biased but he has the best, honest reviews).

the dec ctp (5270) is not the 'real' beta 2, which will be out in around a month.

i will call you a liar as long as you continue on saying what you did about the gui, direct8/9 and other things.
 
OMG please read. I USED THE 32-BIT VERSION OF VISTA. I do not install it on a 64-Bit system. Please is this really hard for people to understand? There are two versions of Vista:

32-Bit
64-Bit

I used the 32-Bit version. The 32-Bit version would not work on a 64-Bit System and a 64 Bit version would not run on a 32-Bit system. Please read the next time before posting. Thanks!

Also note that the two versions are seperate and are not on the same disc. So my 32-Bit version does not have the 64-Bit version on it.
 
destrukt said:
it's 32bit and 64bit.

xp beta's weren't running, near, or at the same speed as the final.

if you want a real [decent], unbiased review from someone who has a clue, read paul thurrot's @ winsupersite.com (yes, domain sounds biased but he has the best, honest reviews).

the dec ctp (5270) is not the 'real' beta 2, which will be out in around a month.

i will call you a liar as long as you continue on saying what you did about the gui, direct8/9 and other things.
Click to expand...



Yeah I guess I must have faked the screenshots then. [SARCASM] You must be running a super computer with 4 SGI video cards because apparently we are not talking about the same OS here. I hardly doubt that the slowness was the result of a hardware compatability problem. I hope some other people try the crusty beta out and let me know here how it ran for them. Make sure to take screenshots or even better video feed. Prove me wrong. Someone made a video of them using it showing everything that I showed in those pics and show how long everything loads and what program does what and show the task monitor with the CPU/Memory gauges. Then throw it up on www.therapidshare.de If it runs better on your system then I will retract my above statements. All I know is for me it was unusable on the system I used.
 
Kschreck said:
Theres to many bugs to report. :(
Click to expand...

And they should already know about the bugs...or they will hear it from the millions of angry customers at launch.
 
Kschreck said:
The 32-Bit version would not work on a 64-Bit System.
Click to expand...
Yes it would.

And sorry I didn't see that you used a 32-bit version.
 
Wait.. Why the bloody hell is this in General Games Chat?
 
Yeah why is this in General Games?

Anyway, It's a BETA. Theres ALOT of work to go into it. Lets see isn't this going to be like Fall 2007? Thats a long time away. Yeah XP may have ran rather nice a year away but it also was not written from scratch, most of the code was already their.
Lets also consider than the interface of Vista is 3d Accelerated(If you used AeroGlass). Lets also consider then that if their are basically no half-way decent drivers this can easily cause for major lag. I believe you are using Aero-Glass based on the Transparency.
This is also a very unoptimized version, and un-complete version. I'm sure Microsoft is aware of everything that currently isn't working, because they havn't completed everything.

Why the hell are you trying to get people to dislike Vista and saying shit about it don't work when your running a friggen upoptimized, crap driver, beta?

I hardly doubt that the slowness was the result of a hardware compatability problem.
Click to expand...
Lets see Hardware Acceleration + Crap Hardware Drivers = Compatibilty Problems.
Obviously they were.
 
First of all, yea it's beta... I take it that you aren't in the Vista testing team, so you can't report any bugs you have.

Secondly, Vista runs OK on my machine... Yes, there are problems with hardware, but that is the vendor's fault and not Microsoft's... Oh, and you can also get WinXP drivers to install, like I did for my sound card, and it works fine 90% of the time.

Vista is not built from the ground up... It's built off of Windows Server 2003 IIRC. Yes they replaced a lot of legacy code, and did a lot of hack-and-slash, but it is not totally redone from the kernel up.

There should be another build coming out this month... Not sure when though, and I'm not sure if it will be public (well, obviously it will be though eventually)... When I get the build from M$, I'll see if it's better... I'm almost 90% sure it will be... Why?

1) Staged installs means install time is roughly 15-20 mins
2) Sidebar 99% sure!!!
3) performance enhancements
4) it should be totally feature complete right now, and now just adding little odds and ends, and fixing bugs
5) driver compatibility :D

Dec2005 CTP wasn't as great as M$ would have liked, due to them rushing to put everything together...So, Feb should be a lot lot better :)
 
Kschreck said:
Yeah I guess I must have faked the screenshots then. [SARCASM] You must be running a super computer with 4 SGI video cards because apparently we are not talking about the same OS here. I hardly doubt that the slowness was the result of a hardware compatability problem. I hope some other people try the crusty beta out and let me know here how it ran for them. Make sure to take screenshots or even better video feed. Prove me wrong. Someone made a video of them using it showing everything that I showed in those pics and show how long everything loads and what program does what and show the task monitor with the CPU/Memory gauges. Then throw it up on www.therapidshare.de If it runs better on your system then I will retract my above statements. All I know is for me it was unusable on the system I used.
Click to expand...
actually, it's a amd xp 3200+ (that's xp, not the new 64bit version), 2x512mb ram (ddr400 in dual channel) & a 6800 gt agp 128mb; i have nothing turned off.

tons of people have tried out the beta (whether officially in the group or not), go to a tech site and have a quick search.

All I know is for me it was unusable on the system I used.
Click to expand...
it's great you added that part, it completely dismissed all those requests you made above.

stop hating, do something useful.

Vista is not built from the ground up... It's built off of Windows Server 2003 IIRC. Yes they replaced a lot of legacy code, and did a lot of hack-and-slash, but it is not totally redone from the kernel up.
Click to expand...
no it isn't, and do you have a source for it being built off server 2003 ?

and yes, the beta2 should be good.
 
Ugh. This is so stupid. It's like when people E-mailed ID to tell them that the "Demo ran poorly" when the Doom 3 Apha leaked.
 
Top Secret said:
Ugh. This is so stupid. It's like when people E-mailed ID to tell them that the "Demo ran poorly" when the Doom 3 Apha leaked.
Click to expand...
hah, i was going to say something about the hl2, painkiller, d3, stalker and some other leaked games; good call.

lol @ kschreck.
 
BETA, gg, learn to read. What do you expect from a beta, you want it to run perfectly? Well, it wouldn't be a beta then, now would it...
 
Top Secret said:
Ugh. This is so stupid. It's like when people E-mailed ID to tell them that the "Demo ran poorly" when the Doom 3 Apha leaked.
Click to expand...
rofl...
 
Kschreck

Erm not beta, CTP.

Ergh, just please get out and get a clue before you run your mouth, idiots should not get hold of CTP's and try to form an opinion about the general state of a program with it. And downloading leaked builts from torrent sites is bad.

---

And destrukt Vista is built off some of the 2003 code base, at the start they where doing a complete rewrite but it is basically impossible to do that in a reasonable time frame and with the amount of people working on windows.

But alot of the 2003 code base has dissapeared to be replaced with Vista code, I think Paul has an article on it, or if not search news and article sites for "longhorn reset"
 
Is this legal?
Do you own a legal copy of this "Beta" version or w/e... Otherwise I think this thread should be closed down.:)
 
i probably should've clarified what i said.

when allchin said they were going to 'reset' longhorn and use a clean base of code, based on a version of windows being developed for corporate uses .. most ppl think/say this is server 2k3, and i have no reason to disagree.

but as you said, the 2k3 code has/is disappeared/disappearing, because when they 'reset' the code base, they didn't simply eradicate everything, they were replacing old with new line by line (not literally, but you get the idea, it is a progressive thing, not a one-off restart). i wouldn't be suprised if there were small parts retained [from 2k3] but i'm not that worried, server 2003 is extremely stable and well built.

thanks for making me clarify myself, ^ben. i can be a bit vague somtimes. :)

- i found one article by paul where he mentions the longhorn/vista reset, but it was nothing much, so i went and found the first article i read, the 'it's broken' one about what mr allchin did.

----

by the sounds of it, he just downloaded it from the torrent site, but this thread in it's entirety isn't illegal, we are only discussing the beta. i myself am a real beta tester, i'm also in various live betas and others .. ms has some interesting labels for different beta groups, like 'dogfood.' ;)

it is annoying when some kid downloads a beta and makes a thread like this, though.
 
Just gonna clarify the 'it's broken' comment for other people.

Longhorn itself was not broken, but the way of developing it was. It was getting too complex to develop to a time frame and a standard of quality that they wanted.
 
Well I cant wait for Vista, 64 bit, directx 10, better GPU's, Crysis, Im investing in it as soon as I can for sure.
 
I'm also gonna buy it, but it's still annoying that even DX9 games will have to be software emulated..
I hope BF2 recieves a DX10 patch or something..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
TechnoHippyChic
If you post it, they will come...
2
Replies
63
Views
6K
TechnoHippyChic
TechnoHippyChic
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
CombineAdvisor3
How would you want HL3 to begin?
Replies
7
Views
4K
CombineAdvisor3
CombineAdvisor3
Back
Top