My Review

[jakKersS]

This is what I did to the Windows Vista Beta DvD.

View Image

1. It crashed alot.

2. Realy slow and have a good pc.

3. Problems Starting up.

4. Half my programs don't work including sound.

5. Too many problems.

But any way, this is just my review. Add your reviews below

Edited May 2, 2006 by Gouki

[kutster]

Umm, I don't want to sound mean or anything, but Vista is still a beta so there is going to be crashes, slow downs, problems booting, and driver issues. I myself couldn't even get Vista to install completly, though I haven't tried recent builds. Vista has a lot going for it, so maybe instead of hitting the negitive things that come with a Beta version of about everything, maybe hit on some of the good things that Microsoft has been working on for years. I can't wait till I can replace my current motherboard and CPU so that I can to test all that is supposed to be Vista.

[jakKersS]

I reilaze that and forgot to mention that but i just burnt the beta because now i reolize i have to wait for the finale

[Biohead]

What build was you using?

I find the 53** builds to be very high quality - and am going to be trying 5365 very soon.

But it's by no means any replacement for XP/2003 just yet...

[jakKersS]

it was build 5342

[Albuquerque]

By the quality of your "review", I'd bet a dollar that it was a warezed copy anyway. Good riddance to you and your (likely illegal) copy of Vista.

[Thunderbolt 2864]

Finally grabbed a copy of Windows Vista. Well, I'm using the latest build and I'm going to give my opinions on this new Microsoft OS.

The installation didn't impress me too much. Unlike the previous NT setup, it didn't have that blue screen text intialization, if you know what I mean - which I didn't care. However, Microsoft didn't include the timer how long Windows Vista was going to be completed, which I found was disappointing. Took like 40 minutes just to install.

And Vista is still using the same old sound theme from Windows XP. I was hoping for a new sound scheme, but that doesn't matter.

The GUI is good, bit too complex, runs fine on my machine.

As for the whole operating system, its a bit complicated to use. Unlike the previous versions of Windows, they kinda modified the start menu, which is now harder to use.

I wish Microsoft would also include the video codecs integrated with Vista, you're going to have to manually install them yourself.

Not bad, I hope to see more improvements in the future builds.

And some points I liked and didn't liked about Vista:

Some things I didn't like about Vista:

The start menu is a pain, you have to click on some folder to expand it, unlike previous versions of Windows, it opens another menu.

Took over a minute just to shut down.

Memory hog of course.

When loading a window with files on a CD, it took like 10 seconds just to display and load all the icons... WTF?

That stupid security center keeps popping up a window when I execute a program... I mean, come on, who cares. Don't tell me this feature will be included with XP SP3.

Things I like about Vista:

Pretty GUI.

Some icons loaded a bit faster with a image, if you know what I mean.

I think when Vista loads, it didn't take too long.

Faster/Networking protocols.

Thats it I can think of.

And the boot screen is just some stupid black screen, doesn't even say "Windows Vista", just the word Microsoft Corporation, 2006 and that slider, similar to XP, and they didn't even include the Windows logo.

And can you even switch to different Vista themes? Its just Aero, I was expecting more themes unlike the Vista Transformation pack in XP....

Edited May 15, 2006 by Thunderbolt 2864

[Albuquerque]

Both of you are speaking as if this is some sort of final release... Are you sure you know what you're looking at? We're not even at BETA 2 yet; the earliest release date for this software is still almost six months out.

Yes, it uses XP sounds. I prefer they spend time fixing bugs versus making up new noises.

Yes, the UI still isn't 100% yet, during install and otherwise. I prefer they get the functions working and, once it all actually WORKS, they can spend time making it prettier.

Yes, things are slow and it soaks up ram. Might this conceivably be linked somehow to the whole "beta" stage it's in?

I'm not here to be a Microsoft "apologist", there are some core-level issues with this OS that aren't yet fixed that are quite glaring; issues with static IP addressing is certainly one that's high on my list. But six months away from their earliest speculated release date isn't a fair time to gripe at them about missing video codecs, or GUI quirks in the start menu, or missing installation time stamp.

That start menu has changed at least three times in the last six months. The install screen has changed almost every time I've installed it. And hell, at least video works at some fundamental level in the recent builds; I couldn't even get this far in many of the previous releases.