beta 2 impressions

As a memeber of the general public just dying for the general release of Beta 2, I'm a little concerned that the well respected Paul Thurrott isn't too impressed with the current build of Beta 2. As most of you guys are priviliged to be using it now I'd be interested to see if you agree with his latest comments.

Marco wrote:

As a memeber of the general public just dying for the general release of Beta 2, I'm a little concerned that the well respected Paul Thurrott isn't too impressed with the current build of Beta 2. As most of you guys are priviliged to be using it now I'd be interested to see if you agree with his latest comments.
Well...it's like this. What exactly are the goals of Vista? I suppose if

one could be privy to that answer, one could then understand what has been achieved toward that goal. But not knowing the goals.... However most of us, no matter how important we think we are and where we are placed in the great food chain that is MS, don't really have a clear idea or understanding of exactly what it is that Vista is trying to be. Therein lies the problem. Those of us who where in on the development of 95-98, 2k-XP, could clearly see certain final goals that we wanted to achieve and that made them achievable. Vista on the other hand, sometimes seems to be a ship without a captain and no port in sight. Trying to look good, yet only skin deep. It seems as if something that had become simpler to use over the years, as in 95 to xp, is now more complex and far less satisfying. It's been years in the making, yet works like it's only months old. The 'insiders" all say, "it'll be much better when it's RTM", but those of us with a lot of beta experience know the foundation and fundamentals are already in stone and will not change that much, if at all. In the end, I suppose we will accept it as usable, if not likable. Then again, we always have xp, which just might turn out to be the "great one". Just my thoughts and experience. Frank

Well, yeah, I agree, its slow, a little bit buggy, UAC is annoying, I was hoping for a wow factor on Install Time. I wish there was better hardware support, Explorer layout still needs improvements, Networking is a mind maze, a lot of the networking windows could definitely do with some consolidation. But, its a major step up from BETA 1, if the Windows Team never bothered with interim builds, 5384/BETA 2 would seem more favorable journalist and testers eyes, but the interim releases have made it seem incremental.
I am hoping to changes in interim builds and RC1 going forward, I want to see more of my bugs fixed. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Marco" wrote in message

As a memeber of the general public just dying for the general release of Beta 2, I'm a little concerned that the well respected Paul Thurrott isn't too impressed with the current build of Beta 2. As most of you guys are priviliged to be using it now I'd be interested to see if you agree with his latest comments.

Well I guess I"ll just have to wait till it's available then make up my own mind. It doesn't sound like I"m going to be able to say "WOW" but it's going to be the "standard" OS for millions of people around the world within a couple of years and whether we like it or not we're going to have to live with it. I remember the public XP Beta and at the time being impressed. XP has come a long way since then so I guess Vista will develop and mature as well in time.
So although my enthusiasm has has been tempered by people's comments...I still can't wait. Come on Microsoft we're dying out here!
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote in message

Well, yeah, I agree, its slow, a little bit buggy, UAC is annoying, I was hoping for a wow factor on Install Time. I wish there was better hardware support, Explorer layout still needs improvements, Networking is a mind maze, a lot of the networking windows could definitely do with some consolidation. But, its a major step up from BETA 1, if the Windows Team never bothered with interim builds, 5384/BETA 2 would seem more favorable journalist and testers eyes, but the interim releases have made it seem incremental.
I am hoping to changes in interim builds and RC1 going forward, I want to see more of my bugs fixed. -- -- Andre Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
"Marco" wrote in message As a memeber of the general public just dying for the general release of Beta 2, I'm a little concerned that the well respected Paul Thurrott isn't too impressed with the current build of Beta 2. As most of you guys are priviliged to be using it now I'd be interested to see if you agree with his latest comments.

"Marco" wrote in message

As a memeber of the general public just dying for the general release of Beta 2, I'm a little concerned that the well respected Paul Thurrott isn't too impressed with the current build of Beta 2. As most of you guys are priviliged to be using it now I'd be interested to see if you agree with his latest comments.

The more I read his Vista artices he's a major DORK!!

Most of the comments and views about Vista fall into a few categories:

1.. Things that don't work right 2.. Overall look and feel 3.. Things that have changed 4.. New features Category 1 is expected since it's still in Beta. As an example, in beta 5308 selecting a different icon for desktop icons did not work correctly. That is fixed in 5384. The list here is long.

Category 2, look and feel is somewhat subjective. Vista is clearly different. Some like it, some hate it. Opinions here are like that body part, everybody's got one.

For many of the common things I do, Vista requires more keystrokes or mouse clicks than previous versions of Windows. Windows Explorer is still a mess and will probably change.

Category 3, the things that have changed may be a problem area. The new UAC is a pain for most experienced users and most of these folks will immediately look for the way to turn it completely off.

Some features common to XP are either gone, not available, or reduced in options. Backup is one example. In XP you had many choices. In Vista, very few.

Category 4 is where MS will likely focus for sales. For me, this area is very weak as it includes many things I neither need, want, or things I already have.

The current betas are very large installs taking 7 GB or more of disk space. This will go down in the final, but we really don't know how much.

Once we get to RTM will see how the above list shapes up.

Ed


"Marco" wrote in message

As a memeber of the general public just dying for the general release of Beta 2, I'm a little concerned that the well respected Paul Thurrott isn't too impressed with the current build of Beta 2. As most of you guys are priviliged to be using it now I'd be interested to see if you agree with his latest comments.

the well respected Paul Thurrott

Wow, it's been a while I've seen that in a sentence... :-/

The goal to me is clear... get a fresh start and try to do it right.
The graphic architecture in windows is designed for non HW accelerated 2d processing. the 3d driver model is slapped on top and can barely take any regular use in desktop mode. The driver model in XP is also weak and inefficient, and the multimedia API is laughable. Vista is supposed to fix that so the other team have solid ground to build on. For example the desktop team can get a look an feel that can match OSX, where windows dont tear when moving and the mouse got smooth motion... Little cosmetic details, that deliver a huge perception diference. (Anyone using an Amiga with its 60hz mouse sync refresh was laughting hard, or sobbing, when ever they saw a windows cursor in motion) In a way Vista is very inspired by existing and past technology and design, so you could measure Vista on how it made windows catch-up/surpase OSX technology.
The way its been layed out, Vista is really a long list of Fix and changes to finaly unlock and maximize the existing PC HW potential and open it up for the future.
Stephan

"Frank" wrote in message

Marco wrote: As a memeber of the general public just dying for the general release of Beta 2, I'm a little concerned that the well respected Paul Thurrott isn't too impressed with the current build of Beta 2. As most of you guys are priviliged to be using it now I'd be interested to see if you agree with his latest comments. Well...it's like this. What exactly are the goals of Vista? I suppose if one could be privy to that answer, one could then understand what has been achieved toward that goal. But not knowing the goals.... However most of us, no matter how important we think we are and where we are placed in the great food chain that is MS, don't really have a clear idea or understanding of exactly what it is that Vista is trying to be. Therein lies the problem. Those of us who where in on the development of 95-98, 2k-XP, could clearly see certain final goals that we wanted to achieve and that made them achievable. Vista on the other hand, sometimes seems to be a ship without a captain and no port in sight. Trying to look good, yet only skin deep. It seems as if something that had become simpler to use over the years, as in 95 to xp, is now more complex and far less satisfying. It's been years in the making, yet works like it's only months old. The 'insiders" all say, "it'll be much better when it's RTM", but those of us with a lot of beta experience know the foundation and fundamentals are already in stone and will not change that much, if at all. In the end, I suppose we will accept it as usable, if not likable. Then again, we always have xp, which just might turn out to be the "great one". Just my thoughts and experience. Frank

Hi Stephan,
Stephan Schaem wrote:

The goal to me is clear... get a fresh start and try to do it right.

I wish!

The graphic architecture in windows is designed for non HW accelerated 2d processing.

Yes, but the graphics are just surface tinsel to try and impress home users; this isn't a fresh start, it's just NT/2000/XP with a silly front end and a slew of annoying background processes - most of which are a complete waste of time. The IPv6 is a true step forward. The setup program is also a step forward (although most people will never see it!), hardware support looks good too, but it's not "fresh start" not by a long way.
-- Gerry Hickman (London UK)

Hi Frank,

However most of us, no matter how important we think we are and where we are placed in the great food chain that is MS, don't really have a clear idea or understanding of exactly what it is that Vista is trying to be.

Nor do Microsoft! (but see below)
The way I see it is that computers and Windows have become a bit like mobile phones, cars and TVs. No one outside the big corporate IT departments care about the technical details anymore, it's all about what color it is, and whether it has an "elegant sliding action". The selling points are all about lifestyles and HDTV.
But in a way Microsoft are right; they've seen the commodity market and are addressing it.
-- Gerry Hickman (London UK)

"Gerry Hickman" wrote in message

Hi Stephan,
Stephan Schaem wrote: The goal to me is clear... get a fresh start and try to do it right.
I wish!
The graphic architecture in windows is designed for non HW accelerated 2d processing.
Yes, but the graphics are just surface tinsel to try and impress home users; this isn't a fresh start, it's just NT/2000/XP with a silly front end and a slew of annoying background processes - most of which are a

The desktop team using the new graphic capability for their UI is one use. The eye candy part of Vista actually translate to something tangible for many developers.
The cleaned up Vista graphic architecture allow developers to start thinking of the untap graphic power in PC's For example, Movie Maker... its all CPU based. Why? Because it doesn't do graphic operation.. or could it be because the XP platform is a minefield for desktop 3d development. With Vista the MS team can write Vista software that tap into all that unused resource and dont need to worry about stability or compatability.
Even so this stuff is a bit overkill for most business app, presentation software can soar on Vista. Keynote compared to Powerpoint is an example as to what a good foundation can deliver.
note: We currently do allot with d3d in our desktop apps, but its a struggle to make it work decently under XP.

complete waste of time. The IPv6 is a true step forward. The setup program is also a step forward (although most people will never see it!), hardware support looks good too, but it's not "fresh start" not by a long way.

The big thing for me is unleasing the GPU, and handling basic concept better (like multiple screen)
I guess I see Vista with developers eyes, and I come with answer to so many problems :)
Stephan

-- Gerry Hickman (London UK)

Hi Stephan,
Yes I can see what you are saying is all valid, but what I find most of the time is that the "wizz-bang-semi-transparent" apps are usually written by marketing types who then put a ton of SpyWare into the app and it ends up either not being very useful or it's unstable because of trying to be clever. When I look at apps on my own system, I just tend to find the most useful things are the simple ones.
In terms of Video Editing, we've had DirectDraw and Overlay for years and that's all you need for pro editing. There's a huge interest in software such as VirtualDub because it's not Microsoft, is simple, and doesn't try to use silly Direct3d features and WMV (which causes lag at starup). Movie maker is just badly written. I wrote my own Video Editor using the DirectShow SDK and it's better than Microsoft's, but home users would hate it because it doesn't look like a toy. I also use XviD which is better than Microsoft's WMV encoder/decoder by a factor of about 10, but obviously most home users wouldn't know where to start so they end up with Microsoft's pathetic media offerings.
Anyway, where's all the trumpet blowing stuff about OpenGL improvements in Vista?? At least if we write OpenGL we can compile x-platform.
Stephan Schaem wrote:

"Gerry Hickman" wrote in message Hi Stephan,
Stephan Schaem wrote: The goal to me is clear... get a fresh start and try to do it right. I wish!
The graphic architecture in windows is designed for non HW accelerated 2d processing. Yes, but the graphics are just surface tinsel to try and impress home users; this isn't a fresh start, it's just NT/2000/XP with a silly front end and a slew of annoying background processes - most of which are a
The desktop team using the new graphic capability for their UI is one use. The eye candy part of Vista actually translate to something tangible for many developers.
The cleaned up Vista graphic architecture allow developers to start thinking of the untap graphic power in PC's For example, Movie Maker... its all CPU based. Why? Because it doesn't do graphic operation.. or could it be because the XP platform is a minefield for desktop 3d development. With Vista the MS team can write Vista software that tap into all that unused resource and dont need to worry about stability or compatability.
Even so this stuff is a bit overkill for most business app, presentation software can soar on Vista. Keynote compared to Powerpoint is an example as to what a good foundation can deliver.
note: We currently do allot with d3d in our desktop apps, but its a struggle to make it work decently under XP.
complete waste of time. The IPv6 is a true step forward. The setup program is also a step forward (although most people will never see it!), hardware support looks good too, but it's not "fresh start" not by a long way.
The big thing for me is unleasing the GPU, and handling basic concept better (like multiple screen)
I guess I see Vista with developers eyes, and I come with answer to so many problems :)
Stephan
-- Gerry Hickman (London UK)

-- Gerry Hickman (London UK)

"Gerry Hickman" wrote in message

Hi Stephan,
Yes I can see what you are saying is all valid, but what I find most of the time is that the "wizz-bang-semi-transparent" apps are usually written by marketing types who then put a ton of SpyWare into the app and it ends up either not being very useful or it's unstable because of trying to be clever. When I look at apps on my own system, I just tend to find the most useful things are the simple ones.

I think MS just had to do it, OSX just make XP look quaint. (Not talking about functionality, just look and feel) (FYI: I use XP in classic mode with zero animation, and I dislike OSX windows animation :)

In terms of Video Editing, we've had DirectDraw and Overlay for years and that's all you need for pro editing. There's a huge interest in

I disagree. First overlay are junk (But we use overlay in one of our app, and I want it out! :) and what does DirectDraw give you over GDI ?
The missing link is accelerated image composition and processing library. Its really the graphic card job nowdays, not the CPU.

software such as VirtualDub because it's not Microsoft, is simple, and doesn't try to use silly Direct3d features and WMV (which causes lag at starup). Movie maker is just badly written. I wrote my own Video Editor

Why do you consider the GPU a silly thing? The CPU is already sweating with the CODECs, no need to make the CPU also do what the GPU can do better.

using the DirectShow SDK and it's better than Microsoft's, but home users would hate it because it doesn't look like a toy. I also use XviD which is better than Microsoft's WMV encoder/decoder by a factor of about 10, but obviously most home users wouldn't know where to start so they end up with Microsoft's pathetic media offerings.

Good to see that you know DirectShow.
Editing tools can live at all level. MovieMaker got its place. With MovieMaker I wanted to show that a given design with XP, you can have a better implementation if developed on an OS with a better foundation. MovieMaker, like 'ALL' microsoft dektop app dont use D3D because of the support nightmare (MCE media player is THE exeption... and its not without its troubles)
MovieMaker , VDub, ... would benefit from the GPU. VDub was pretty much design at first to transcode... But look how much slower it is compare to ATI transcoding tool. like 10x slower? and its not like vdub is bloatware. Its not all a result of D3D, but GPU shaders help.
Final cut Pro on the MAC uses Apple GPU accelerated image library, and its a good thing. We saw a 4x speedup in our case comparing SSE2 vs PS2.0 (P4 3ghz VS radeon 9800)

Anyway, where's all the trumpet blowing stuff about OpenGL improvements in Vista?? At least if we write OpenGL we can compile x-platform.

My understanding is that OpenGL is 'dead' with Vista.
Since you cant use OpenGL as it was intended, you need to build yourself a layer of avstraction to take full advantage of OpenGL on OSX and Dx10 on vista.
Regards,
Stephan

Stephan Schaem wrote: "Gerry Hickman" wrote in message Hi Stephan,
Stephan Schaem wrote: The goal to me is clear... get a fresh start and try to do it right. I wish!
The graphic architecture in windows is designed for non HW accelerated 2d processing. Yes, but the graphics are just surface tinsel to try and impress home users; this isn't a fresh start, it's just NT/2000/XP with a silly front end and a slew of annoying background processes - most of which are a
The desktop team using the new graphic capability for their UI is one use. The eye candy part of Vista actually translate to something tangible for many developers.
The cleaned up Vista graphic architecture allow developers to start thinking of the untap graphic power in PC's For example, Movie Maker... its all CPU based. Why? Because it doesn't do graphic operation.. or could it be because the XP platform is a minefield for desktop 3d development. With Vista the MS team can write Vista software that tap into all that unused resource and dont need to worry about stability or compatability.
Even so this stuff is a bit overkill for most business app, presentation software can soar on Vista. Keynote compared to Powerpoint is an example as to what a good foundation can deliver.
note: We currently do allot with d3d in our desktop apps, but its a struggle to make it work decently under XP.
complete waste of time. The IPv6 is a true step forward. The setup program is also a step forward (although most people will never see it!), hardware support looks good too, but it's not "fresh start" not by a long way.
The big thing for me is unleasing the GPU, and handling basic concept better (like multiple screen)
I guess I see Vista with developers eyes, and I come with answer to so many problems :)
Stephan
-- Gerry Hickman (London UK)

-- Gerry Hickman (London UK)

On Wed, 31 May 2006 06:27:51 +0100, Marco wrote:

As a memeber of the general public just dying for the general release of Beta 2, I'm a little concerned that the well respected Paul Thurrott isn't too impressed with the current build of Beta 2. As most of you guys are priviliged to be using it now I'd be interested to see if you agree with his latest comments.

I removed it after a week, the Microsoft drivers were far too unstable on my Sony Vaio with GEforce Go6200 chipset, it had real trouble with 1200 x 800 resolutions (my native resolution). Had problems with hibernation (memory parity errors on resume), various compatability probems. I know it's a beta, but it feels me like an Alpha. I reported all these issues using the bug reporting tool.
-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/