In Search of Everything All at Once

It's been nearly a year since Vista was released, and on this blog I've been all over the map with Vista. I at first liked it, then didn't like it so much, but slowly started to like it more once I upgraded my hardware (which was fast to start with).

I've had it on my Windows machine for about 4 months now (the Vista Business Edition, 64-bit), and my thoughts are still somewhat mixed. I do believe they have fixed many of the critical issues that kept it from being a productive operating system, but there are some lingering things that still cause problems on occasion.

We'll start with the things I do like:

• The new interface. I know it's had mixed reception, but I find it generally appealing. I find switching windows and seeing what other windows are doing easier now, and I don't think about window navigation as much as I used to with XP. And no, they didn't copy Mac's.
• The 64-bit kernel. Vista's 64-bit kernel is amazing, just as stable as Windows 2003's or Windows XP 64-bit edition, if not more. I have yet to suffer a blue screen or hard lockup since I've had this install.
• UAC (User Account Control). There have been people who complained about this feature more than anything else in Vista, and I don't get it. Everyone wanted better security in Windows and disliked the idea of everything running as Administrator, so Microsoft fixed this and people complain. What gives? UAC isn't 100% polished, but it works well, and does keep a system safer than without it. Linux has had this (via sudo) for years, and people have long advocated it there. In fact, many peoples security wish list for Vista (including mine) wanted some sort of user mode with moving to administrator mode only when absolutely necessary.
• The folder views. In general, they're very good. The sorting and stacking is much better, and I've actually used it to help me find things more easily.
• Previous versions. The Mac people talk about how great the new time machine is in Leopard, and in the same breath complain that Vista ashamedly took Mac's ideas. Good grief. I'm afraid it was Vista that was copied this time around. The previous version feature has saved me several times. My only gripe with it I will address below.
• The Vista installer finally lets you load RAID drivers from a CD-ROM, instead of having to resort to floppy drives like you did in XP and 2000. This was annoying, and the fix was long overdue.
• Powershell. Technically this isn't included in Vista (it wasn't ready when Vista was RTM), and its available for XP, but I like Windows having a real, almost UNIX-like shell. It actually responds to the ls command, which is good because I usually type it by mistake rather than dir since I'm on UNIX machines so much.
• The wallpapers. No really, they're good!
• Snipping Tool. This handy little screenshot grabber I keep in my quick lanuch bar. Sure there's other programs otu there that do it, but this comes with the OS and is easy to use.
• The C:\Users\Rob folder (of course, it would be C:\Users\Your Name and not Rob, unless you're named Rob). Moving this from C:\Documents and Settings\Rob made total sense.
• The Windows Calendar and Address Book. I don't use them, but I think they're great if you use nothing else. Windows has long needed this. They're well done tools as well.
• DirectX games are handled better in the windowing system, and switching back to your desktop is faster and easier under Vista than it was with XP. This is a natural benefit from running the desktop in graphics accelerated mode.

Things I don't like:

• Vista is a hog, more so than any other Windows OS. You need more RAM and a decent graphics card (A 7000 series nVidia or better for good performance). It runs poorly on laptops, and doesn't provide much more bang for the resources it uses than XP did.
• Without the performance and stability patches, there are some highly annoying problems that will keep you from liking Vista from the first moment you use it. It
• Copying files from removable drives is tough. You can't select multiple files, you must copy them individually. This is stupid. Why is this the case? I just use a command prompt and run something like copy G:\DCIM\1007ZDIM\*.* C:\Users\Rob\Pictures to copy pictures from my camera's SD card, but if you don't know how to use the command prompt you're stuck here. This is a backwards move from XP.
• The programs menu seems crowded. I like how it expanded in XP. It seems claustrophobic now.
• The new backup and restore utility is certainly easier to use than XP's or 2000's, but from what I can tell you cannot back up certain folders on your system, you either can back up your documents only or your entire hard drive. It specifies exclusions that you can't edit that could possibly be a problem.
• The new activation scheme is less buggy, but silly. I've always thought activation for an OS was a bad idea.
• The sidebar. I just deactivate it. I don't see a need for widgets. This isn't really a fault of Vista's, its just my preference. I have yet to find something that widget can do that I can't live without.
• The name. Is Vista really the best name they could give this OS?

It would seem that my list of likes is bigger than my list of dislikes. In general, that's true. I'm happy with Vista on my Windows machine, and would rather use it than XP. Vista feels more stable, if that can be quantified. It feels more substantial, and after using Vista for a while I find using an XP machine is a bit of a challenge, as I'm missing some of the new Vista windowing tools and explorer views.

Having said that, if I had a less equipped machine, I would definitely go with XP. XP Media Center Edition is still installed on my laptop, and I'm not upgrading it to Vista for the life of it, ever. I tried Vista on it, and it was very slow.

You need 2 GB of RAM really to run Vista. You can get by with 1, but it's not pleasant if you run more than 1 or 2 applications at a time. Ideally you need 3 and above. I'm running 3 GB and have not had any performance problems. A dual core processor helps too. When I had it back on my single core CPU it didn't run nearly as well. That's still a lot of hardware to throw at an OS, even today. XP and Linux run with far less.

So what would I advise people who are thinking of getting or building a computer today? If you're willing to spend over $1,000, go with Vista. If not, stick with XP. Vista is not better for gaming, despite what Microsoft says. I get similar frame rates with XP and Vista. If you want DirectX 10 though, which some games are starting to use, you will need Vista and a DirectX 10 capable graphics card.

For your average "I check my e-mail and surf the web" kind of computer user, I'd still recommend XP, especially if they don't want to spend a lot. Computers priced below $600 with Vista truly suck.

One thing I miss while I'm using Vista is the UNIX shell. I realize though this isn't Vista's or XP's fault, they're just not UNIX products. I know DOS commands quite well, so I can work with good ol'e CMD.EXE, but it's just not the same as bash.

The bottom line on Vista is that like it or not, if you want to use Windows, Vista is going to quickly become your only viable long-term option. You can still get some mileage out of XP, but this won't last forever. If you're going to buy a new system and are willing to spend some decent money on it, go with Vista, if for nothing else than to get the transition over with as soon as possible. For better or worse, it's inevitable.

If you're going to stick with XP, run XP 64-bit edition. XP 32-bit is just not worth it anymore. Not only does XP 64-bit it use the faster and more stable Windows 2003 kernel, but it's harder for viruses to infect (for now anyway) and will help you get ready sooner for the day when OS's will only come in 64-bit flavors.