First impressions count. They can leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling created out of the hope and ripples of excitement a product generates... or, they can leave you feeling like you feel having installed the public beta of Microsoft Windows Vista. I like to know what all the fuss is about plus I wanted to debug my site for IE7 (err, I mean bypass the bugs in IE7 to work with my site): two good reasons to download and install the beta of Microsoft's finest OS. Aside from the undeniable "God is it slow or what?", the other in-your-face personal observation has to be "I've seen this before—in Mac OS X Tiger!".
Choose your flavour
One of the niceties about choosing Mac OS is the simple choice: there's just one desktop version. OS X is full-featured, period. With Windows it's different: you have to think about what features you might possibly need in the future, and balance these with the increased cost of having them. With Vista the choice is schizophrenic:
That said, Windows Anytime Upgrade means if you choose the wrong flavour, you can buy more features. No mention about getting money back, however, if you dug deep and found no use for bloatware ;-)
The beta installs the Ultimate flavour, still missing several anticipated features which have been cut from the OS as Microsoft discovered it couldn't deliver them. For Ultimate, "the most significant customer audience is the 'dual user'—the person who wants to have one PC to use both at work and at home". I guess that would be me, since my use of Windows XP at work differs from how I use it at home.
Dashboard Sidebar © 2006 Microsoft
Now featuring...
According to the Microsoft Windows Vista Beta 2 Product Guide:
...Vista introduces a breakthrough user experience...
Hmm... why am I getting mental images of mutton wearing sheep's clothing?
Many of the planned "new" features in Vista are not new in appearance to users of (currently shipping) Mac OS X Tiger (OS X 10.4). It's natural for Microsoft to copy Apple, just as Apple surely copies Microsoft. I don't resent this at all because the homogenization of features serves to unify the cross-platform experience and strengthen competition to make good things even better. But some of the remaining "new" features listed in the Product Guide are not really even new to previous-version Windows users, being evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
Here are a few random observations and interesting features (not all of which I could test):
- Some interface icons are refreshed yet others are familiar from the operating system before the one before—pixellated and too reminiscent of Windows 98. The "Live Icons" are simply scalable thumbnails, like the Preview pane in OS X except resizable. Overall Aero is a bit too Aqua-like to be original;
- Windows Flip 3D is an Expose (OS X) clone that I was unable to test as my machine wasn't up to the graphics;
- I've yet to find a convincing role for Dashboard Widgets in OS X, now I can experience the exact same redundancy in Windows Vista (where Dashboard = Sidebar and Widgets = Gadgets);
- Windows Photo Gallery is included, unlike OS X which doesn't include iPhoto (that's part of the extra-cost iLife suite, although it is included with new Macs). Used for viewing, organizing, editing and attaching images to e-mail message, it's very much an iPhoto clone;
- Windows Media Center is only for Home Premium and Ultimate customers. Apple's Front Row is part of OS X, and Media Center is outright ugly next to Apple's offering.
- You also pay more to get Windows Movie Maker HD and Windows DVD Maker—as you do to get iMovie HD and iDVD in iLife;
- Windows Defender (anti-spyware) is standard; there's no equivalent in OS X (is one justified?);
- Scheduled backup/ backup to a network drive is standard (except in Basic), whereas use of Apple's Backup software requires an extra-cost subscription to .Mac;
- Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications (Enterprise and Ultimate editions) lets you run unmodified UNIX applications... just like OS X;
- Virtual PC Express (again, in Enterprise and Ultimate) supports a single instance of a virtual operating system (such as Windows 2000) running on top of Vista. On the Mac side Boot Camp is free for Tiger (and is to be integrated into Leopard/ OS X 10.5) so you can dual-boot OS X and Windows XP, but the Parallels Desktop for Mac virtulization software on OS X lets you run multiple operating systems simultaneously (provided you have the drive space and RAM!);
- Instant Search... a.k.a. Spotlight under OS X;
- Internet Explorer 7 features tabbed browsing, RSS integration, and improved (but partial) web standards support. The RSS integration as actually rather well done, although IE7 is no Firefox or Safari;
- Vista automatically recognized my Linksys WiFi PC Card and allowed me to connect to my wireless LAN effortlessly. Such an Apple-like experience I almost got confused;
- I was pleased to see that the beta included a 12 month free trial of eTrust EZ Antivirus. Apple dropped it's support for Virex and I now use ClamXav in an effort to prevent passing on Windows viruses (since none have yet appeared for Mac OS X). I guess this partnership is as much an admission by Microsoft that its OS is vulnerable as it is a welcome commitment to taking some responsibility to make things right;
- The pre-configured Guest account (disabled by default) is potentially useful;
- I couldn't get anything done without clicking an endless stream of permission dialogues, even during start-up. Infuriating! If the application I just clicked on needs my permission to "continue", why did I just open the program? This is security gone too far;
- To end on a very positive note, Windows Sideshow looks most interesting. It requires hardware support so isn't something I could look at, but in functionality mirrors the auxiliary display you see on some mobile phones. I'd like to see something like this added to the next Mac Books.
Spotlight Instant Search © 2006 Microsoft
Preliminary conclusion
Vista is very clearly a Windows OS, a decidedly more evolutionary step rather than the revolutionary one it was hyped to be. For some reason I was expecting a change more akin to the Mac OS 9 to OS X leap, so it's perhaps no surprise my reaction is hum-drum. I've used each successive version of Mac OS X since it was a Public Beta, and each time felt that my user experience was being refined. Windows XP was a similar experience after Windows 98/ ME/ 2000—it seems Microsoft is unable to top that achievement in Vista.
I'm not so sure upgrading to Vista is going to be more dramatic in terms of getting stuff done than the changes we can anticipate in upgrading from Tiger to Leopard. I'll admit mine was not a proper look around, but I know all I need to know: I sure can't use it on my 5 year-old Dell. Ubuntu feels more polished, responsive and friendly and so the better choice for this aging machine, despite my being significantly more familiar with the Windows environment. I think of Vista as eye candy for XP; response-wise the OS sure feels like it's swimming through sticky candy!
I don't see a reason to upgrade in the near future. Windows XP will run Internet Explorer 7 and, since I use the OS at home mainly for webdev (and running the occassional Windows only program, remote assistance) I fail to see the need to do the same, but more slowly.
Hasta la Vista, beta.
Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X was a leap akin to Windows ME to Windows Vista. Respectfully, Microsoft had an "in-between" that Mac OS 9 --> Mac OS X lacked, it was called Windows XP, which kicked the pants off of Mac OS X in it's initial incarnations.
Hello again A_Pickle. I've obviously struck a nerve; my apologies for that. You have a novel idea there, comparing Mac OS 9 to Windows ME (and Mac OS X to Windows Vista). Windows ME came with my Dell and it was a terrible (short-lived) OS. Upgrading to XP was a breath of fresh air, but XP was only what ME should have been. Early editions of Mac OS X were pretty crude that's true, but then we have to remember what a major leap Apple took in migrating it's aging OS 9 to a multi-tasking 'nix-based core. OS X has grown into a feature-rich and mature OS, and this is not down to just spit-and-polish on the user interface.
I think including all the code for Ultimate on the Basic edition opens up a whole new degree into hacking Windows. I mean, sooner or later hackers (crackers?) will find a way to upgrade from Basic edition to Ultimate edition in no time.
You are likely correct Oskar: where there's a will there's a way. Even Microsoft fanboy Thurrott has written on the topic of hacking Vista, calling it "a huge step up from XP from a security standpoint... [that] shouldn't be viewed as a panacea of any kind". I read that before it has become widely available Microsoft are already collecting fixes for a Service Pack, sure to have a security focus. But we have to acknowledge that they seem at last to take security seriously.
I have to use Vista at work and have pretty powerful PC to push its performance is enough fast, but compatibility with other apps and hw is lousy. Had to give up my ACDSee8 because it wouldn't run, my HP scanner refused to work flat out, XSI5.11 (and even 6) had problems especially with aeroglass (drivers - I know), and I absolutely HATE the bloody file exploder which shows every gooddamn directory differently - can someone tell me how I can force it to show 'list& details' ONLY in EVERY directory???