Page 1 of 2

Windows Vista Beta 2

Posted: Fri 09 Jun, 2006 17.08
by Pete
so I got bored and set about downloading the MASSIVE dvd iso that is Windows Vista Beta 2. Even though I own a 64bit machine I went for the 32 bit version *for the moment* and did an upgrade install. Just for the hell of it.

I have to say it's rather nice. Although at the same time, odd. I do love the glassy windows, but then when you maximise something they vanish and go black :( - and windows live messenger - the program I use the most in non-max form, doesn't have native title bars anymore (at least not without looking stupid).

The account protection thing (something i've noticed using my mate's crapintosh) is probably a good thing, although slightly overzealous at the moment (surely Windows Firewall / security centre etc should be exempt?)

Also a lot of programs decide to crash for no reason :( outlook and wmp are particular favourites so far. although outlook seems to have restarted right after it closed.

What i might do (taking into account my current setup involves a partitioned drive) is reinstall it again, but clean. Then see how that goes before deciding whether to go back to XP for the moment.

Has anyone else tried it? I did give it a shot in vmware prior to installing it for real, but it's simply too slow in there.

Posted: Fri 09 Jun, 2006 18.24
by Jamez
Meh!

Vista sounds like a stupid gimmick to me. It's just a tarted-up, RAM heavy version of Windows XP.

I don't think I'll be upgrading to Vista until I'm forced to.

Posted: Fri 09 Jun, 2006 18.50
by Gavin Scott
I'd like to see it running, but I reckon I'm going to need a better pc.

The P4 I recently built could probably handle it (according to the minimum requirement info), but I'm not happy with the stability of it and think I must have done something wrong. The on board sound card seems to be knackered; but I won't digress.

Pete, tell me more about Vista, and what makes it significantly different to XP. I tend to run lots of applications at the same time (or at least, leave them all open). Clearly what I should have is a dual core machine, but would Vista improve the way my computer can handle multiple apps on a single processor?

Posted: Fri 09 Jun, 2006 19.17
by Bail
You actually got it to download? The download sites been on "Oh, seems giving away vista free for more popular than we thought, naff off" for over a day.

Posted: Fri 09 Jun, 2006 20.25
by Reeves
How can this be downloaded if it's meant to be an operating system that costs money?

Posted: Fri 09 Jun, 2006 20.41
by Jamez
BETA version (in other words, its a crappy test version released to geeks so that they can complain to Microsoft).

Posted: Fri 09 Jun, 2006 23.51
by Neil Jones
Bail wrote:You actually got it to download? The download sites been on "Oh, seems giving away vista free for more popular than we thought, naff off" for over a day.
You'll have to use your own Download Manager to get it, as that's the only way I have a chance to start downloading it.

Obviously the faster the broadband connection the better, I'm looking in at a 3.13Gb download. About 16hrs on 512k broadband, don't even try it on dial-up.

Posted: Sat 10 Jun, 2006 10.10
by Pete
I went in through the Corel CDN to get the link and used the download manager they supply you with. Took overnight to come down.
Reeves wrote:How can this be downloaded if it's meant to be an operating system that costs money?
as troutie said - beta version. It's far from finished/perfect with "preliminary" written all over the help system. Things crashing, icons missing/low quality. Desktop wallpaper which is the word "placeholder 11" on a background, using the XP sounds. Stuff like that.

Plus it stops working in June 2007

Posted: Sat 10 Jun, 2006 10.34
by Charlie Wells
I'm now runnig Vista, left computer on all day to download, nearing 3 hours to install. Usual problems so far, a couple drivers not working (audio), and a few bits of software not running. It looks interesting though slower (using 1Gb+ RAM).

Also worth noting that Microsoft Office is now available for beta testing.

Posted: Sat 10 Jun, 2006 11.08
by Jamez
Charlie Wells wrote: It looks interesting though, slower (using 1Gb+ RAM).

That doesn't surprise me. I would probably need to upgrade my RAM from 1gb to 2gb just to keep this OS ticking over.

XP will do me fine for the next 3 or 4 years!

Posted: Sat 10 Jun, 2006 18.08
by Pete
one would expect that it's memory requirements would shrink as it's fine tuned before release. I think I'll have a play with it for a bit longer before going back to XP.