[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Vista SP2 Beta: More Efficient, But Not By Much here

[belgianwaffle]

Is it just me, or is there just never a positive review on PCworld about Microsoft?!

This does not make this magazine particularly trustworthy and kind of makes it look like its biased.

[rjm8r8]

I agree 100%. The media has given Vista a bad wrap before it even came out. Personally, I've had no problems, performance or otherwise, and love most of the new features.

[admorris]

I agree 100%. As I was reading the article I was thinking the same exact thing. How can you have a apples to apples comparison of gadgets using a laptop for one and desktop for the other. I find myself reading PCworld less and less b/c of crap like this. I have had Vista since it has come out and have had absolutely 0 problems with it. It has been every bit if not more stable and pleasing to work with than XP. The tag feature for pictures, the inset backup program are all a huge improvement over XP.

[ZACommando]

You must have installed SP2 on a machine that's only a few weeks old. My Dell XPS 1530 running Vista Ultimate 64-bit has had every critical and recommended update installed since Vista was launched because I upgraded to 64-bit a couple of months ago and my school doesn't have discs with SP1.

Anyway, my point is that when I started the install, I had 74GB of free space. After the install I had 83GB, which I most certainly did not expect. It seems that SP2 actually cleans up the old versions of files somehow, because my Windows Side-by-Side directory is 15GB when it was 24GB yesterday. After running compcln.exe, I regained another 6GB! I can't remember a time when I've had 90GB free on my HD since I initially installed Vista.

As far as the speed goes, it appears to be similar, although resuming from sleep seems faster. Some memory bottlenecks seem to have been lessened as well because the startup time has decreased a noticable amount. I think it's a worthwhile upgrade.

[bdkennedy1]

Well, when Microsoft does something positive with Vista, then maybe there will be something positive to talk about. How many positive comments did you hear about WindowsME?

The truth of the matter is that no company can hit an OS home run every time. Vista sucks, Windows 7 will be awesome.

[MarioJuarezLeyva]

so. how about windows 7?

[WGroth]

PCWorld's last issue featured:

1. PCWorld's Top 10 Laptops:-- Score: Dells- 0, HP- 1

Guess millions of Americans are buying inferior laptops

2. More rants and whining about VIsta

Guess the millions of people using Vista without feeling the need to rant and whine just don't get it.

Irrelevancy anyone?

W. Groth Missouri

[praack]

Cool your jets - this is not a slam on microsoft but just a review - and it does not matter much on the hardware - if the system resources were fairly compatable and the software pack was in line then the results when isolated should be correct - remember we are not running benchmarks here but isolated resource hits.

will SP2 make a real difference - I wager yes - if you are using a system that meets the minimum configuration for a vista instal - but that's also a system that benfits from ready boost too. though 2 gig is the defacto minimum for runnning vista keep in mind that the published requirement is :

1 gig memory and a 1 ghz processor (recommended) and minimum is 512mb memory and 800 mhz processor - yes microsoft is sticking to the same specs as they had for launch

if your vista system is running fine - ok - but most of my customers do not like it, and I usually have a dual boot option for them. I personally don't care much for it and I was in 2 of the beta's. It's pretty but that's about it in my eye's. I do not like the way most of the detail areas I could get to easily before for techie types is tough to get to.

I just don't see it as a win - and the big corps are not touching it and are getting soured on 7 already after hearing it is vista take 2

p

[myreality91]

why do people compare Vista to ME? thats not even a fair comparison. i had XP SP2 on my desktop until my boot drive crashed and i started new with Vista and i love it, havent had any problems. i also tried ME when it came out and it was unusable for me, so a Vista-ME comparison is unreasonable in my opinion. Microsoft is taking some huge steps in my book by admiting that there were things wrong with Vista and trying to fix them.

[adholt]

I have noticed that this Magazine has realy disintegrated into a spim machine for Apple. Every article on Microsoft is met with skeptisim and last I checked when do you review a Beta? I thought Beta's were for previewing and testing. The editors at PC World might take a lesson from other failing media outlets and start focusing on less bias and more truth. The truth is Vista is a great OS. Its different from XP in some ways but still performs well. I think that we should all write the editors of this online Mag and ask them to stop insulting our intelligence with these biased reviews of BETA software.

[SnTholiday]

I've been using Vista since it first came out on Jan 07 and have not had any major problems. I just don't get all the negative press. I find Vista MUCH easier to install than XP, especially if you want to run a RAID setup. XP is a nightmare in this regard. I also find navigation within the OS much easier with Vista as well. UAC, well that's another story but it's only a minor hassle. Vista cannot be compared to ME, it is fast and stable.

[WGroth]

I agree it's only a review and probably a fair and well-researched one at that. However I think people are using this post to express their disillusion with the direction PCW has taken over the last couple years with almost totally negative coverage of Vista and leading Vista box manufacturers like Dell and HP, for example. Microsoft/Vista rants and to a certain extent, Apple raves, get old after the 1000nd iteration, and aren't very informative. Likely they appeal to many IT professionals (I remember when they all hated IBM in lockstep), but the millions of indivdual users successfully using Vista and who appreciate the new features and appearance are puzzled and bored by the endless Vist hysteria.

[DTNick]

ZACommando,
It's not a few weeks old, but it is one that I only use for testing. As I said in the article:

"Keep in mind, though, that your savings may depend on how long you've had Vista installed on your PC. If you installed Vista a year ago, you may have more previous versions of system files than if you installed it a month ago, so your results may vary."

--Nick

[praack]

well we'll see i guess soon about windows 7, but as for vista itself - some may like it - others won't.

I did not renew my tech net, maybe I should this time for the new beta as they will get a closed beta next year on windows 7 most probably.

initial reports are more favorable off the alpha's but some features are only active in the corporate environment if you have the 2008 server on line. so not much help at home.

otherwise I can't say much as I have not seen it.

[GetReal]

Why all the bashing of PCWorld? This article was not a detailed review and did not seem negative to me.
Otherwise to comments. Many or most people probably have had a good experience with Vista, I have not and I tend to think that PCWorld views might reflect feedback from the small vocal number of people like me who have expressed their serios dislike of the OS.
If you like it then use it and enjoy, even write about, it but don't tell others to shut-up discussing their negative experience. (Actually I see about an even break between comments both for and agains Vista, so where is the perceved PCWorld bias, I mean to say nothing is perfect)?

[MicTig]

Haha I like how everyone's defending Vista now. Me too! I love Vista 64bit it's amazing! Not slow! Whoever says it's slow is because they're really smrt and have an outdated computer.

[rixware]

This article seems pretty well-researched and contains sufficient detail so that the reader may come to an informed conclusion.
What I don't get is why people (in these comments) feel the need to defend Vista or XP or Microsoft or whoever.
It's just an OS, not a religion.
It's just a product, not a way of life.
It's just a tool, not a philosophy.
It's just a company, not a friend.
And I really don't understand why people get all huffy about "the media" whenever they read something they don't like. Most people I know in print and web journalism go out of their way to be accurate, fair and balanced -- almost to a fault.
If a product sucks, we want to know. If it does not, we want to know that. For the most part, that's what we get. If a product that you like gets a bad review -- or even a bad reputation -- that doesn't prevent you from continuing to use it.
In the end, you try to make an informed choice, then try to make it work. That's how PCs have been now for a very long time.
Taking sides on an OS is so 1992.
+

[CoverName]

Much

[TechieXP]

First, its nice to know that at least Microsoft is moving in the right direction in trying to work with the resource issues in Vista. When I first installed Vista, I was pretty appalled at the fact it was using 500MB of ram with no applications installed vs Windows XP which was using around 100.

To be fair to some comments anytime you try to compare an OS that isn't even in the same family you will me disappointment. Each new OS is designed with code to be able to work with newer features in application and with hardware. Comparing Vista to any Windows 9x based product is simply dumb...PERIOD.

Even comparing Vista to XP is a little rude. I however wasn't expecting Vista to be using 4 times as much resources as the previous OS. I did however expect double.

The only 2 things I think I felt was unfair about this review was expect something major from a beta. It isn't complete and I a sure the final product will show eve more improvement. But at least you can see they are working on it. I still say wait. If you are a person having problem with Vista, installing a incomplete product is only going to make it worse.

THe comparison of laptop vs desktop will always be unfair. The performance of both will be signifcantly different. Even if spec'd very similar. Even though dualcore processors in both have speedstep technology, the laptop version kicks in much sooner if the CPU isn't doing much. Memory resident programs like the sidebar in my observation used less memory then having progras like Winzip and others running in the background. However as you mentioned depending on what sidebar item you are using makes a big difference. If the sidebar item is using your internet connect to constantly receive date, like streaming video or audio or even weather updates these will use more memory. If the CPU is idle, a laptop will do more of this through the CPU vs running them in memory. A desktop however will do the opposite. Check for yourself using the taskmanager. Watch how busy the CPU gets on a laptop vs a desktop with your same test. Again it will depend on the items.

I don't however think the review was biased or bashed Windows Vista. My experience has been most users with Vista issues created them by installing programs meant for Windows XP.Others for doing the same with drivers that were meant for Windows XP. Installing 3 programs that do exactly the same thing. And the list goes on.

To get really good performace out of Vista, a CPU that is 1.8 or better is what I would recommend. Most of the laptop I see is using 1.5's. THis is especially true if you are using progras that are cpu and memory intensive at the same tie like Photoshop or if you encode audio/video from one format to another. More than 2GB of ram is what I would suggest. After installing all the programs I use which are web design related including rthe Adobe CS3 Master Collection, even siiting idle my system was suing 1.4GB of ram and the CPU was always was around 50-60% usage...even with 4 cores.

I did use Tweak IV for Vista and made some changes and it helped drastically. For example, if you have 2GB of ram, you can increase performance by having the core of Windows run from ram vs using harddisk swaps. Changing the cache setting on your drives helps as well. If you know soething about the services, shutting down the ones you don't need helps too. After some tweaking I am now using 768MB of my 4GB of ram and CPU is idling at around 30%. So much faster too. If you have a desktop you can give yourself more advantages then with a desktop. If your motherboard supports RAID (most oem systems don't) and you use 2 identical drives on RAID 0 this will increase speed as data is being pulled from 2 different drives at the same time increasing how much data is being transferred. If you have a ThinkPad or Alienware, these typically allow more than one hardisk to beinstall which means you can use RAID configurations on them too.

With some time an effort and a little research you can make Vista run as good as XP...I managed it and I'm not using Service Packs at all.

What anti-virus you are running manners too. I found if you use the corp version of Norton vs using the the Security Suite will wreck less havick. Even just using the stand-alone anti-virus is good too. Windows Vista builtin Firewall is more than sufficient if you know how to manually setup a few more locks on some backdoor ports. If you becareful when opening emails and web sites you visit you could run Windows without any of the security suites. I haven't used Norton since i installed Vista. Not saying you should. But if you are a careful user you won't need it. If you always installed trusted software, open trusted emails and visit trusted sites...u will have practically no problem.

And as usual, anytime a PC relate article is wriiten an Apple biased person alaways throws in there 2 cents. To be I think most Apple users are like non-heterosexual people. Always needing to justify your existance to teh rest of the world, because if you didn't no one would even care because you are to small to matter. Apple has done some great things. Like switching over to x86. Allowing Windows to run on Macs. But it doesn't matter if you can't market your product well. Only iPhone has been a very successful product. Wow it took years before you passed the sales Motorola did with the Razr. You ever notice PC users don't really bash Mac article, because we don't need too. When you already run 90% of the world, the right to brag has already been established an thus goes without saying.