My thus-far experience with settling on a final install of Windows Vista to examine has been a rocky one. I installed Vista Business (the version provided by BGSU and the MSDNAA program) in a Virtual Machine on my main Windows XP box (dubbed the 'Dragonfly'). I had to run Vista virtually over XP with just 512MB of RAM available to the VM, while sharing an XP workload on an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ 1.8 Ghz CPU. To be fair, this was a painfully slow experience, but it was nonetheless my first Vista experience.
My laptop is a Dell Inspiron 5150. Yes, that one. The desktop-class Pentium 4 3.06 Ghz CPU was certainly up to the task of crunching Vista, although my scarce 512 MB of system memory and weak GeForce Go 5200 32 MB video card would cripple the setup. I was quite surprised then, to learn that Vista was able to install drivers for most of my laptop's hardware, including the wireless miniPCI card (a Broadcom-based board). Even more surprising was the fairly zippy feel the OS had even with 512 MB of RAM. I've been hearing that 512 is almost unusable with Vista, but this truly not the case. Then again, I was working on a clean install, so I'm sure over time this would prove to be a problem. The biggest surprise was that the full effect of the Aero Glass desktop UI ran on the 32 MB video card (this is barely a Direct X 9 card). Dragging effects were slow as could be, and deploying the 3D application switcher actually did push the system to overload, forcing Vista to drop down to the Vista Basic UI, which is mostly a dark-colored version of the default XP theme.
Having dug up an old 12 GB hard disk lying around, I promptly installed it into my Dragonfly computer and booted up the Vista installer. Before I go on, I should say that this computer is configured to handle Vista reasonably well, with the 1 GB of RAM being the starters-sweet-spot. All 5 CDs read just fine during installation, and within 45 minutes I was at a Vista desktop. Most impressive.
The big question: is Vista worth the upgrade?
After working with it in various forms and situations over the past week, I can safely answer this question the same way that I did when the transition from Windows 98 to XP took place. Although Vista is not as big of a stability upgrade as 98-to-XP was, it really does not set itself apart from XP enough to warrant an upgrade, at least, not a manual upgrade. If you're buying a PC from a vendor with Vista pre-installed with working drivers and programs, then by all means, enjoy it. If you're perfectly happy with you XP box, Vista's broad lack of compatible programs and drivers makes it another year or so from becoming “necessary.”
What I liked most about Vista:
Aero Glass: Originally I was worried about the fancy desktop being a system hog, but after a few official test runs with 3D Mark 2001 and 2003, I see less than a 2% drop in performance from XP. Aero Glass is disabled when the 3D subsystem is needed by another application. As a UI, the transparency effects do not get in the way of getting work done, especially since title bars are now skinnier than they were in XP, allowing for your application to have more screen space. Serious users will never use the 3D application switcher against the default ALT-TAB option (hint: one is much faster than the other), but it was a neat option to have.
Search: If it can be configured correctly to scour your entire hard drive, or at least what you truly care about, then having a quick and effective search in the Start Menu will save you lots of time. I'm already accustomed to searching rather than hunting through menus for programs and documents. It really does work.
Redesigned Control Panel: Although opinion is split 50/50 in the industry over this, the new start menu and Control Panel organizes tasks much like my CS 324 (Usability Engineering) class might have wanted Microsoft to. A far more user-friendly experience. And of course, for the already-experienced, the Classic View is still around.
The “All Programs” Option: If you use the All Programs menu under the Start Menu to access applications (and who doesn't?), then get ready for a plesant surprise. Instead of having huge menus tear across the screen as you navigate to find what you need, the All Programs menu fits entirely within the default Start Menu, and takes on a more tree hierarchical structure that feels more natural than 95, 98, 2000, and XP ever did. Bravo.
No More “My:” That's right, not a single default folder with “My” prefixed. This was always an unnecessary use of 16 bytes in XP, if you ask me.
What I liked the least about Vista:
Sidebar: Windows Sidebar is about as useless as they come, and is not even in the same class as OS X's Dashboard. A scarce selection of default applications out-of-the-box, half of which barely work, should not be a major bullet point on the OS
Windows UAC: User Account Control is supposed to be among some of the big security changes that Microsoft has implemented. In theory, allowing the user to choose what programs should or should not run with administrator privileges is a good idea – for those people who understand what the potential outcomes may be. For most users, because the dialog boxes are so easy to click through, these boxes will simply become an annoyance to the point that the average user will approve anything thrown at them. From my understanding, saying “Yes” to any of these UAC dialogs permits full, unrestricted access for a program to do what it needs to do as an administrator. This, my friends, is bad security.
Prettier XP: Vista is a big change in many aspects from former versions of Windows. On the other hand, it still has a lot of XP flavor that is hard to get out of your mouth. By my rough estimates, 85% of system configuration dialog boxes are ripped straight from XP. This is not entirely a bad thing, as it keeps the initial learning curve down. On the other hand, some of the dialog boxes seem useless or under-developed in Vista. The Themes dialog box, for example, now stands on its own (it used to be a tab in the Display Properties dialog). Problem is, with the Aero UI series, there is no reason to change themes because the themes have no real design options (Aero Glass is slightly tweak-able). The new dialogs that are Vista-specific are anemic at best, with links opening a folder window usually with one or two options to check, compared to the compact and feature-full XP dialogs. This may have been a UI design choice to promote simplicity, but for the power user it means having to navigate a dozen windows to alter options that would have been present in just one or two dialogs in XP.
Games: I'm a PC gamer at heart. In addition to my Half-Life 2 (and mods) obsession, I also armchair many of my old favorites, like Thief II, Roller Coaster Tycoon, SimCity 3, SWAT 3, and other late 90's games. Vista has broken all of these for me, and most of these games are well-past their shelf dates, meaning Vista-upgrade patches are not a reality. This may change as I obtain more compatible hardware drivers, but this reason alone is why I dual-boot XP alongside Vista If you play any PC games, be aware that Vista has serious compatibility issues. I recommend a dual-boot configuration.
With that short summary, I will conclude with this: Vista is the next version of Windows, which means within three years we'll all be running it anyway. But it won't be for another year that Vista will be worth the upgrade, while applications are rewritten to work flawlessly on it. Vista is a worthy successor to XP, at least once driver and application compatibility is brought up to near 100%. Then again, is this not the case for all new operating systems?
Thanks for reading.
