«

Does anybody here have any experiences they can share regarding windows
vista beta 1? I am going to load a system I have here with it and was
curious as to what i can expect in the way of errors, etc. The system I am
going to load it on is non critical and I am loading it just to get a feel
for it fwiw.

"Captain America" <> wrote in message
news:6df69$434c53e1$45e9449e$ ervers.com...
> Does anybody here have any experiences they can share regarding windows
> vista beta 1? I am going to load a system I have here with it and was
> curious as to what i can expect in the way of errors, etc. The system I am
> going to load it on is non critical and I am loading it just to get a feel
> for it fwiw.

I have installed (dual boot) build 5219 on an athlon 2000 with 768mb ram and
tnt2 32mb video. Performance was good and I could not find any errors.
Unfortunately, it looks and acts almost identical to XP - Huge
disappointment!

In article <XEY2f.10026$y_1.342@edtnps89>, Martik <>
wrote:

> Unfortunately, it looks and acts almost identical to XP - Huge
> disappointment!

That is bad news.
I was really hoping, after so many years of development and a little
pressure from the industry that they'd do something better.

Martik wrote:
> "Captain America" <> wrote in message
> news:6df69$434c53e1$45e9449e$ ervers.com...
>
>>Does anybody here have any experiences they can share regarding windows
>>vista beta 1? I am going to load a system I have here with it and was
>>curious as to what i can expect in the way of errors, etc. The system I am
>>going to load it on is non critical and I am loading it just to get a feel
>>for it fwiw.
>
>
> I have installed (dual boot) build 5219 on an athlon 2000 with 768mb ram and
> tnt2 32mb video. Performance was good and I could not find any errors.
> Unfortunately, it looks and acts almost identical to XP - Huge
> disappointment!
>
>
It looks like XP because of the crappy video card. You are going to get
a whole lot better looking OS if you get a much better video card.

"Billh" <> wrote in message
news:434c6fe2$0$28788$ m...
> Martik wrote:
>> "Captain America" <> wrote in message
>> news:6df69$434c53e1$45e9449e$ ervers.com...
>>
>>>Does anybody here have any experiences they can share regarding windows
>>>vista beta 1? I am going to load a system I have here with it and was
>>>curious as to what i can expect in the way of errors, etc. The system I
>>>am going to load it on is non critical and I am loading it just to get a
>>>feel for it fwiw.
>>
>>
>> I have installed (dual boot) build 5219 on an athlon 2000 with 768mb ram
>> and tnt2 32mb video. Performance was good and I could not find any
>> errors. Unfortunately, it looks and acts almost identical to XP - Huge
>> disappointment!
> It looks like XP because of the crappy video card. You are going to get a
> whole lot better looking OS if you get a much better video card.

If you are referring to the 3D effects and other eye-candy, a much more
powerful video is required. I'm referring to the similarities in the general
user interface with XP.

What we need from MS is a secure, reliable OS that works on basic existing
HW.

"Martik" <> wrote in message
news:rv03f.10058$y_1.2244@edtnps89...

> What we need from MS is a secure, reliable OS that works on basic existing
> HW.

That will NEVER happen. Billy boy has no interest whatsoever in putting out
something that actually works right the first time.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:08:01 -0700, Captain America wrote:

>Does anybody here have any experiences they can share regarding windows
>vista beta 1? I am going to load a system I have here with it and was

1st install - AMD x64 3200+ 512MB , worked fine, folder sharing,
browsing all okay. Search didn't work , it launched a 2nd search window
and did nothing.

40 days later 2nd install (u/g RAM to 1.5GBfirst ) Windows Explorer is
so slow and using 99% CPU cycles it's unusable. Search working IIRC,
only tried maybe once.

XP 64bit Nvidia drivers worked, was fine without as well

Included SiS900 NIC drivers okay.

No drivers for my Gb NICs.

Had to d/l auto drivers.

So far all software okay, WinRAR, QuickPar, newsreaders, Mozilla (some
relocating DLL issues errors on the 2nd install), Opera okay.

OOo 1.x and 2.x worked.

Both times, some issues with View Folder options, even changing settings
I think to what I wanted , it kept displaying as media files - keywords,
raiting, author and so on. The 2nd install seems to be okay now.

>curious as to what i can expect in the way of errors, etc. The system I am

Anything it's only the 1st beta.

>going to load it on is non critical and I am loading it just to get a feel
>for it fwiw.

It's not FWIW, wait until it's RC and not Beta.

You have seen the other posts in 24HSHD and know about
the newsgroup -
microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups....64bit.general

Me

Martik wrote:
> "Billh" <> wrote in message
> news:434c6fe2$0$28788$ m...
>
>>Martik wrote:
>>
>>>"Captain America" <> wrote in message
>>>news:6df69$434c53e1$45e9449e$ wsservers.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Does anybody here have any experiences they can share regarding windows
>>>>vista beta 1? I am going to load a system I have here with it and was
>>>>curious as to what i can expect in the way of errors, etc. The system I
>>>>am going to load it on is non critical and I am loading it just to get a
>>>>feel for it fwiw.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have installed (dual boot) build 5219 on an athlon 2000 with 768mb ram
>>>and tnt2 32mb video. Performance was good and I could not find any
>>>errors. Unfortunately, it looks and acts almost identical to XP - Huge
>>>disappointment!
>>
>>It looks like XP because of the crappy video card. You are going to get a
>>whole lot better looking OS if you get a much better video card.
>
>
> If you are referring to the 3D effects and other eye-candy, a much more
> powerful video is required. I'm referring to the similarities in the general
> user interface with XP.
>
> What we need from MS is a secure, reliable OS that works on basic existing
> HW.
>
>
Ok I have not tried it just what I have read, as far as hardware I don't
think they are aiming for this os to work on basic existing hardware.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:52:43 -0400, Billh wrote:

>Martik wrote:
>> "Billh" <> wrote in message
>> news:434c6fe2$0$28788$ m...
>>
>>>Martik wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Captain America" <> wrote in message
>>>>news:6df69$434c53e1$45e9449e$ ewsservers.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Does anybody here have any experiences they can share regarding windows
>>>>>vista beta 1? I am going to load a system I have here with it and was
>>>>>curious as to what i can expect in the way of errors, etc. The system I
>>>>>am going to load it on is non critical and I am loading it just to get a
>>>>>feel for it fwiw.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have installed (dual boot) build 5219 on an athlon 2000 with 768mb ram
>>>>and tnt2 32mb video. Performance was good and I could not find any
>>>>errors. Unfortunately, it looks and acts almost identical to XP - Huge
>>>>disappointment!
>>>
>>>It looks like XP because of the crappy video card. You are going to get a
>>>whole lot better looking OS if you get a much better video card.
>>
>>
>> If you are referring to the 3D effects and other eye-candy, a much more
>> powerful video is required. I'm referring to the similarities in the general
>> user interface with XP.
>>
>> What we need from MS is a secure, reliable OS that works on basic existing
>> HW.
>>
>>
>Ok I have not tried it just what I have read, as far as hardware I don't
>think they are aiming for this os to work on basic existing hardware.

Too right, it's this bit that is funny -
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/win.../vistarpc.mspx

GPU — PC systems should have a graphics processor that will support
Windows Vista Display Driver Model.

Windows Vista offers significant improvements to the graphics user
experience. To take advantage of these advances in the graphics user
experience, graphics processor will need to support the Windows Vista
Display Driver Model.



Since people have video cards thet pre-exist the Vista Beta no one can
really expect thier card to support a new driver model? One has to hope
Vista has enough drivers supplied on the install media.
Lucky me has a Nvidia card, and drivers on the Nvidia site.

This is even better,
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device...t_protect.mspx
Protected Video Path - Output Protection Management (PVP-OPM) makes sure
that the PC's video outputs have the required protection or that they
are turned off if such protection is not available.



It's explained much better here
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25124
In a nutshell, unless you have a display device that is equipped with
specific technology intended to foil recording, the operating system
will degrade the image quality so bit for bit copies cannot be made.
<....snip....>
the operating system will kill the video outputs and give you nothing.

Me

In article <434da12e$0$28820$> , Billh
<> wrote:

> Ok I have not tried it just what I have read, as far as hardware I don't
> think they are aiming for this os to work on basic existing hardware.

I made that mistake last week, too.
Apparently, even though all the articles and analysis talk about how
Vista is going be different, there are going to be low-end versions
that will run on today's hardware, too.
Several people have been using Vista beta on pretty low-end stuff, and
I think one guy said he had it running under only 128 MB, although I
wouldn't expect the final to run anywhere near that.