Home > Technobuddy > Archives > 2007 > February > 02 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USEnjoy the pretty Vista, but don’t step off the cliff
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
When I installed Microsoft Vista Tuesday afternoon, I knew Bill Gates was right. This version of Windows really is the most secure yet.
That’s because, after the installation, I could no longer go online. Now that is a computer safe from hackers.
With a little work I straightened the problem out but it illustrates the heartaches involved in installing any new operating system. You are almost guaranteed to discover that some of your old programs and devices no longer work.
The solution to my problem was fairly simple - my network interface card (the device that connects the computer to the home network) needed new software. Once that was installed I was back online.
You may not get off that easy so my earlier suggestion still holds - don’t install Vista now. Wait for a few months, then wait one more month.
But many of you will upgrade to Vista within the next few days, so I’ll take you along on my highly educational adventure of installing Vista.
Let’s start at the store. You’ll find four versions of Vista. For most of you, the only sensible choice is the one I bought: Vista Home Premium. The bottom-of-the-line Vista Basic doesn’t include some features that make the upgrade worthwhile. The two most expensive versions of Vista - Business and Ultimate - don’t add enough value to make them worthwhile for most home users.
If you have a computer that’s already running Windows XP, you can and should buy the upgrade version of Vista, not the full version. You’ll get the same product and - in the case of Home Premium - save about $80. With tax included I paid $171 for Home Premium Upgrade.
Back home from the store and ready to install Vista, I ran into my first problem. I couldn’t figure out how to open its fancy plastic case. A confusing mess of arrows indicate you are supposed to pull on one tab at the top while depressing two plastic tabs on the side of the package. I ran out of fingers. Finally, after I broke one plastic tab, my stepdaughter opened the case for me and I was ready to install.
I popped the installation DVD into my machine (keep in mind that Vista doesn’t come on a CD so your PC needs a DVD player). Once I did that, the installation program immediately offered a link to Microsoft’s Upgrade Advisor. That program will audit your PC in advance and let you know about any potential problems before you install.
Vista allows you to skip that step if you wish. Don’t. That’s how I discovered I needed to download the software for my network card. Had I not downloaded the software while still running XP I would have been caught in a giant Catch 22. When Vista was installed I couldn’t go online to download the driver software needed to get online.
There’s one other decision to make before you get started. You need to select one of two installation methods.
One is a clean installation - if you choose this option you must back up all your data and then plan on reinstalling it, along with all your programs, after Vista is up and running. In truth, this is the best way to go - Vista gets a clean start and is most likely to be trouble-free. But a clean install also involves the most hassle.
You may not have a choice, by the way. Some computers have versions of XP that make a clean installation mandatory. The back of the Vista package offers complete details on installations that require a clean installation.
I took the second route, an over-install that leaves your data and programs intact after you are done. (A sensible person should back up all data before the installation anyway. Please don’t ask if I’m a sensible person, I’d rather not say.)
Once all the decisions were made, I started the installation process around noon. Within minutes I ran into a problem. An onscreen message told me I needed to remove some Symantec programs and Vista aborted the installation. I used the Windows uninstall feature in the control panel to get rid of the programs.
Then I started the installation again. The first onscreen message was: “Your upgrade may take several hours to complete.” That was cheery news, especially since I planned to sit at the machine so I could report on the installation.
The installation itself was fairly boring - there’s no need for you to sit at the machine and watch the completion meter slowly turn from zero, to 1 percent done, to 21 percent, and finally completion. Had I not been writing about all this I would have taken Lucy the beagle for a walk. Unlike earlier versions of Windows, there were no decisions to make once the installation started.
Finally, at 1:45 p.m. the installation was done. Given the noon start time and the aborted first attempt, it didn’t take several hours. Your own installation time may vary wildly depending on your computer, its speed, the size of the hard disk and other factors. My machine has a 3-gigahertz Intel processor, a 200-gigabyte hard drive and 1 gigabyte of RAM.
Once Vista was up and running I started exploring its new features. While I have used beta copies, some of these features weren’t fully operational then.
First, I checked out the look of the program - after all, the new Aero 3-D graphics have attracted the most attention. Many reviewers say Windows has finally caught up with Macintosh’s pretty desktop graphics and features. Me? I could live decades longer and never feel the need for the new look. That’s just me. It is sort of pretty but the thrill passed quickly.
I would say Aero does no harm but that would be a lie. The fancy graphics use up some of your computer’s horsepower.
Next, I wanted to check out a report in PC World that programs actually run slower with Vista than Windows XP. Before installing Vista, I timed a complex task in PhotoShop. That task took about 6 seconds with XP, about 7 with Vista. My very unscientific finding is this: Vista may be a bit slower but I doubt you’ll care or notice.
Then I tried some of my old programs. Most of them worked just fine with Vista. Your own mileage may vary. Ironically, the only programs that gave me any trouble were those created by Microsoft. Before I could open and use Microsoft Word, I had to insert the installation CD for that program to let it update. Once I did that, Word worked fine.
Another new feature is the ability to dock small novelty programs on the right side of the screen - one offers news headlines, another is a clock. The techie term for these things is gadgets. Macintoshes have had this feature for a while. I didn’t find it usefu. But - other than the ones that came with Vista - there are many available for free download. Maybe there’s one I’ll like.
One major improvement is not glamorous but very handy. There’s a great back-up program built into Vista and it worked fine - no tweaking necessary - with my external hard disk. It’s the only back-up program you are likely to ever need and a major improvement from what XP offers.
Finally, I decided to turn off my computer. Windows now puts your PC into a powered-down sleep mode instead of turning it off.
That means your PC will start quickly and - if you have programs open when you power down - all your work will be where you left it when you start working again.
You have the option of changing that feature so Windows turns the PC off. But I like the way sleep mode works and will use it.
Finally, my overall impression of Vista: It’s a worthwhile upgrade, worth waiting for. And that’s what I want you to do - wait for it.
Permalink | Comments (20) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns
Comments
By Robert
February 2, 2007 08:07 AM | Link to this
Vista is the best reason yet to buy a Mac, or go to open source
By jeff
February 2, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this
“I popped the installation DVD into my machine (keep in mind that Vista doesn’t come on a CD so your PC needs a DVD player)”
Again, you have to dance to Microsoft’s tune to have new hardware to run it.
Open source…..computing for the rest of the world!
By CynicalGeek
February 2, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this
With 95% of the PCs of the world running Windows, you’re not going to find a easy way to get Linux to the desktop. Windows is here to stay, for better or worse. Ok, I admit it, the Wow! factor got to me and I ordered the 64-bit Windows Vista Business for my AMD x2 machine.
By jeff
February 2, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this
It already IS on desktops. Viruses, cost & licensing fees will be the determining factor in open source. Many governments are already cancelling their MS contracts for Linux / open source solutions.
By CynicalGeek
February 2, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
Well, what I have found is that when governments start researching alternatives such as Linux, Microsoft just knocks down the licensing fees. Look at Germany and Australia I believe were two big contracts that Microsoft kept. The governments spent a couple years researching the possibility of moving to Linux, worked out the logistics, and then eventually stuck with Microsoft because they made it cheap enough. It is my personal opinion that the IT staff for a Linux world is more expensive than the equivalent in the Microsoft world.
By jeff
February 2, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
Why would IT be more expensive? 95% of the world’s servers run Apache (Linux). It’s core is UNIX, which has been around for ages. Linux is no more difficult to network than Windows.
It is all PR by MS. McDonalds & Starbucks don’t have better burgers or coffee than Checkers or the local coffee shop, but Americans like to be told what to eat, drink or what OS to use & the best PR marketing teams win.
By jeff
February 2, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this
Hey CynicalGeek!,
I have a question….since most of Vista’s “eye candy” was available in Apple Macs for a few years, did you think to try OS 10?
By Gotta Be Me
February 2, 2007 01:14 PM | Link to this
Widgets…they’re called Widgets, not gadgets, and they’re one of the first accoutrements I loved about a Mac!
By Jane Quatam
February 2, 2007 02:09 PM | Link to this
Bill Husted is the man. He loads his computer up with free software and then tells us what we need without having a clue what we do. He can’t even open the dvd case and this clueless oldfart is gonna tell me I need Vista, but he can’t say why or when. He must be married to the publishers daughter, or he makes a mean pot of coffe at the office cause he sure can’t write about technology.
I’ll buy Vista when I can’t use my current software any longer which is 5 to 10 years from now, this endless treadmill of upgrades to fill the coffers of Microsoft while draining our wallets is as empty as the pursuit of new and better appliances. There is a hole in our lifes and material things aren’t filling it. What is wrong with this picture and how do we fix it? That is a column I would enjoy seeing Mr. Husted write.
By CynicalGeek
February 2, 2007 02:30 PM | Link to this
Jeff, I’ve been running OS X Tiger since last year and yes I love it. However, I must support Windows in my job and I have implemented *NIX in certain situations. I had a Apache box that ran for many years without rebooting (production webserver with high loads and Frontpage extensions.) I have come to realize that there are situations where Linux is a viable alternative and cost-effective. However, for the most part, in the real-world where everything is centered around MS Office integration, you’re better off grinning and bearing it with Microsoft than researching and reinventing the wheel with *NIX. The Wow! factor for Vista that enticed me was symbolic links and I/O processing changes that keep processes from running away with the OS. Believe me, I’m not a blind Microsoft-lover, I’ve just come to recognize that the jobs that I have had usually demand Windows and everyone else is just locked out of the game. For myself, at home, I’ll have Vista, OS X, Fedora, and Redhat loaded at home on different boxes next week.
By Yert
February 2, 2007 03:01 PM | Link to this
I think you shouldn’t get Vista for around three months - to the end of the year, when SP1 should be out.
Anywho, a Mac won’t make you happy if you like to game, as the latest graphics cards aren’t supported by the Mac motherboard, let alone Mac OS X.
Linux is the only other option, and I have to say that Open GL screwed up, so gaming on Linux is sadly crippled. Speaking of screw ups, Linux distros don’t sport enough of a similar look to each other to entice customers, and most distros lack some media support due to licensing issues. Finally, Linux needs more out of the box support to be a commercial success, something I want, because Apple totally failed. Their idea of advertising is to propagate the stereotype that Mac users are technologically inept, and mainly, pompous bastards who think they are better.
By jeff
February 2, 2007 03:08 PM | Link to this
Before there was gormet coffee in stores there was canned stale coffee and that’s all….. no choice. On the West coast, the “nerds” had coffee shops with good coffee, but many didn’t listen. Today, we all have choice. MS dominates the computer world, not because it is a great OS, but because it uses strong arm tactics to limit competition. There are some of us who still like a GOOD cup of coffee.
Five years ago you could barely install Linux & make it work but today you can be installed, printer & Broadband ready in an hour. It installs easier than Windows, but alas more people buy pre-installed. If Dell or Gateway offered a Linux workstation at $100 less with no licensing fees and an Office suite included, how long before ‘grind-your-own-beans’will be at a computer store near you!
By CynicalGeek
February 2, 2007 03:53 PM | Link to this
Jeff, Here is where I am coming from. For example, we use some web applications that are run by a big-name company. Some of these big companies are so good that they “unofficially” support products such as Mozilla Firefox. Well, that makes me feel better about the world-domination of Microsoft. However, the company telling me that they unofficially support Firefox means that their support is not good enough for my user’s to even try to use Firefox. Unless companies fully support a non-Microsoft product then there is no sense in IT departments trying to support that non-Microsoft product. What happens is that at the worst possible time an attorney cannot use product X due to them trying a non-Microsoft product. In industries where time=money, there is no time to grind your own coffee. Also, a $100 savings by buying Linux quickly evaporates when someone spends 4 hours trying to get some application to print properly or get the desired output. It’s just not worth it in the regular world. I tried to be a Linux advocate on the desktop, I instead am a Mac advocate on the desktop (if they really truly don’t want Windows) and a Linux advocate in specific server solutions (such as email, email filtering, file serving, print serving.) I understand your love of alternatives to Microsoft and wish you the best in Saving Linux On The Desktop but I’m afraid I can’t help.
By Treeorc
February 3, 2007 08:38 PM | Link to this
I became sick of Windows after using it since 3.11 and installed Linux Ubuntu 6 months ago. It took 20 minutes on a my Celeron laptop with 512 RAM. It blows Windows Vista Home Premium Edition and OS X away both in look, feel, and performance……what a concept….. I have not looked back since.
What is my problem? DRM, proprietary tactics, and other idiodic concepts that Apople and Microsoft drum up along with the Recording and Movie industry…..that and poorly programmed operating systems……
By Gaviate
February 4, 2007 05:21 AM | Link to this
I started with Windows 3.1.1, only upgraded to 98 when educational software for daughter would not work, since then have switched to Mac and now find Microsoft useful for an occassional laugh..my sympathy to those of you held by the “gate”!
By strickland
February 4, 2007 06:24 PM | Link to this
Read ur column in the Sunday AJC, wow looks like the fun I had installing RedHat 5.2 several years ago. Makes me want to head right out to the computer store and grab the software (and the additional hardware). Really makes me wonder why I did the boring install of Scientific Linux which has been running uneventfully for more months than I can remember now. Thanks for recommending Vista
By jeff
February 5, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this
CynicalGeek, It’s “not worth it” (using Linux solutions in the “real world”) because some MS trained IT wiz says it. Many companies around the world DO find it a cost effective and more stable solution. Bullet proof from viruses itself is worth $$$$.
The “Mictrosoft is better because they dominate the market” isn’t the answer forward thinking, budget minded IT guru’s need to parrot.
By jeff
February 5, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this
IBM has a Redbook guide to migration from Windows to Linux in the buisness world http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/SG246380.html?Open
By Doug Black
February 6, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this
I am hoping that someone can give me some good advice. Microsoft hasn’t. I bought a new computer for my ofice in December. I have a $10 Vista upgrade. Not in a big hurry to do that, but it expires March 31.
Here is my real question. I have my own copy of MS Office 2003 professional running on the computer. Will it run on Vista? I searched Microsoft’s site and it was not helpful at all. Any thoughts?
By Bill
February 6, 2007 02:28 PM | Link to this
Doug, your copy of Office 2003 will run just fine under Vista. The first time I tried to use it, the program demanded the original installation CD. Once I satisifed that request, the program ran fine.
My early experience with it:
All my existing programs including Office, PhotoShop and even my computer games run fine with Vista.
I have an adequate video card (128 megs, an ATI) but I think Vista will be happier with a better video card … or that’s what I’m telling my wife.
My machine has 1 gig of RAM. I’ve read from others - mostly blogs - that I’ll do better by upping the amount of memory. One blogger, I’d link if I could remember which one, said that - to get the same performance that XP delivered to him with 1 gig, he’d need 1.5 gig to equal it and 2 gigs to better it. I am not sure that’s right, but it’s an interesting thought and I’ll also use that as an argument to spend the money to up the RAM.