is everyone happy vista

I tried the old beta a few months ago and it was very flaky and buggy. I downloaded the new one the other day but something went wrong with it and the product keys that were sent to me. So I ordered the DVD. I am downloading it again to try a second time (3hrs left maybe I wasted £12 on buying it).
Anyway I am just wondering how stable this new version is? From what I understand its the final version before release next year (except for bug fixes).
I did like Vista when I tried it but one of my bugbears was the new layout for programs. Alot of things took more clicks to get to and things didn't seem to have that easy to find process that XP has. I know, it will just be a case of getting used to the new layout but some things felt unnecessarily longwinded.
For those that tried the other betas, have things changed much in the latest version? How is stability?
IIRC my laptop scored 2 in the performance scale. 1.5Ghz processor, 1Gb ram and 128mb min of graphics. So its not the greatest specification. Once I get it installed I will probably tone down the graphics and have it running on basic. I am not one for fancy desktops, I just want to functionality.

The current version is BETA 2; There will still be at least a Release Candidate (RC 1); and possibly an RC2.
It does not matter what experiences others are having. The only way you'll know if it is for you is to try it.
Bobby
"Beck" wrote in message

I tried the old beta a few months ago and it was very flaky and buggy. I downloaded the new one the other day but something went wrong with it and the product keys that were sent to me. So I ordered the DVD. I am downloading it again to try a second time (3hrs left maybe I wasted £12 on buying it).
Anyway I am just wondering how stable this new version is? From what I understand its the final version before release next year (except for bug fixes).
I did like Vista when I tried it but one of my bugbears was the new layout for programs. Alot of things took more clicks to get to and things didn't seem to have that easy to find process that XP has. I know, it will just be a case of getting used to the new layout but some things felt unnecessarily longwinded.
For those that tried the other betas, have things changed much in the latest version? How is stability?
IIRC my laptop scored 2 in the performance scale. 1.5Ghz processor, 1Gb ram and 128mb min of graphics. So its not the greatest specification. Once I get it installed I will probably tone down the graphics and have it running on basic. I am not one for fancy desktops, I just want to functionality.

So far, after a couple of weeks, I think this is the best beta OS so far. I have not had a crash, everything works. The more I use Vista Explorer, the more I like it. I think the change in the interface of Office (except in Outlook) is much more dramatic than in Vista.
William
"Beck" wrote in message

I tried the old beta a few months ago and it was very flaky and buggy. I downloaded the new one the other day but something went wrong with it and the product keys that were sent to me. So I ordered the DVD. I am downloading it again to try a second time (3hrs left maybe I wasted £12 on buying it).
Anyway I am just wondering how stable this new version is? From what I understand its the final version before release next year (except for bug fixes).
I did like Vista when I tried it but one of my bugbears was the new layout for programs. Alot of things took more clicks to get to and things didn't seem to have that easy to find process that XP has. I know, it will just be a case of getting used to the new layout but some things felt unnecessarily longwinded.
For those that tried the other betas, have things changed much in the latest version? How is stability?
IIRC my laptop scored 2 in the performance scale. 1.5Ghz processor, 1Gb ram and 128mb min of graphics. So its not the greatest specification. Once I get it installed I will probably tone down the graphics and have it running on basic. I am not one for fancy desktops, I just want to functionality.

The current Vista beta #5384 is very stable. We have had no hangs or BSOD and the OS is generally working properly. We has disabled as many of the "security features" as is possible, logon as Administrator, and use Firefox and Thunderbird for Internet communications. We would certainly not use Internet Explorer if there was an alternate application program. The big question is what is left in Vista, after the above changes, that makes it any improvement over Windows 2003 Server/XT ? The answer to this question is unknown at this time.
Robbie

Robert Robinson wrote:

The current Vista beta #5384 is very stable. We have had no hangs or BSOD and the OS is generally working properly. We has disabled as many of the "security features" as is possible, logon as Administrator, and use Firefox and Thunderbird for Internet communications. We would certainly not use Internet Explorer if there was an alternate application program. The big question is what is left in Vista, after the above changes, that makes it any improvement over Windows 2003 Server/XT ? The answer to this question is unknown at this time.
Robbie Sorry about the slip of the tongue, it should read Windows Explorer not

Internet Explorer. Robbie

Robert Robinson wrote:

The current Vista beta #5384 is very stable. We have had no hangs or BSOD and the OS is generally working properly. We has disabled as many of the "security features" as is possible, logon as Administrator, and use Firefox and Thunderbird for Internet communications. We would certainly not use Internet Explorer if there was an alternate application program. The big question is what is left in Vista, after the above changes, that makes it any improvement over Windows 2003 Server/XT ? The answer to this question is unknown at this time.
Robbie

You should try to run it with the security enabled. The whole point of running Beta 2 is to find problems. If you have problems running with security enabled report the problems. Running as you do you may as well be using XP. The big improvement over XP is the different security model which you are trying to defeat. There is no comparison with Server 2003 as Vista Beta 2 is not a server OS.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Beck wrote:

I tried the old beta a few months ago and it was very flaky and buggy. I downloaded the new one the other day but something went wrong with it and the product keys that were sent to me. So I ordered the DVD. I am downloading it again to try a second time (3hrs left maybe I wasted £12 on buying it).
Anyway I am just wondering how stable this new version is? From what I understand its the final version before release next year (except for bug fixes).
I did like Vista when I tried it but one of my bugbears was the new layout for programs. Alot of things took more clicks to get to and things didn't seem to have that easy to find process that XP has. I know, it will just be a case of getting used to the new layout but some things felt unnecessarily longwinded.
For those that tried the other betas, have things changed much in the latest version? How is stability?
IIRC my laptop scored 2 in the performance scale. 1.5Ghz processor, 1Gb ram and 128mb min of graphics. So its not the greatest specification. Once I get it installed I will probably tone down the graphics and have it running on basic. I am not one for fancy desktops, I just want to functionality.

I have a test system with very similar specs. I want to test how Vista runs on minimal hardware. I do not use Aero Glass as the graphics card doesn't have WDDM drivers. It is slower than XP on the same machine. I was however pleasantly surprised to find that the system is usable. I use Office 2007 Beta and Expressions Web Design Beta on it. It is a viable computer for Office, Outlook connected to Exchange, and light web design work. Beta 2 is more stable than previous versions but it is possible to mess it up. The worst problem I've had so far was messing up a user profile by going to java.com and letting it install java online. IE 7 quit working for that profile. It only affected the user I used to install java (a standard user). I was able to logon as an administrator and fix the problem by uninstalling the version of java that was loaded automatically and installing the proper beta version for Vista. I recommend setting up a standard user and running as that user. This way it's hard to mess up the system. This also seems to mitigate the impact of UAC. If you try to do something that needs admin privileges it usually only asks you once for an admin user name and password then performs the task. If you are actually logged on as the admin you keep getting multiple UAC prompts for the same task.
This is one experience only on a very plain jane system - Vista Beta 2 32 bit installed on a P4 1.6 GHz, 1 GB ram, Intel 845 chipset, ATI Radeon 7000 AGP with 64 MB, one PATA 20 GB hard drive, and one combo CD/DVD burner. On a laptop you may run into driver problems.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Kerry Brown wrote:

Robert Robinson wrote:
The current Vista beta #5384 is very stable. We have had no hangs or BSOD and the OS is generally working properly. We has disabled as many of the "security features" as is possible, logon as Administrator, and use Firefox and Thunderbird for Internet communications. We would certainly not use Internet Explorer if there was an alternate application program. The big question is what is left in Vista, after the above changes, that makes it any improvement over Windows 2003 Server/XT ? The answer to this question is unknown at this time.
Robbie
You should try to run it with the security enabled. The whole point of running Beta 2 is to find problems. If you have problems running with security enabled report the problems. Running as you do you may as well be using XP. The big improvement over XP is the different security model which you are trying to defeat. There is no comparison with Server 2003 as Vista Beta 2 is not a server OS.
Hi Kerry,

A server version of Vista (Longhorn) is available and we have evaluated it. I do agree that users should test the Microsoft security features. We have tried them and have previously commented on their functionality. Our primary concern is the security risk of outside connections; that is, the Internet, Wi-Fi and other network communications. There is no absolute way to protect against intrusion by someone who gains physical access to a computer, regardless of whether or not the data may be encrypted. Microsoft has a dismal history regarding computer security problems, but they certainly deserve credit for correcting security problems as they have been identified and for trying to improve their application program and operating system security. As noted in another message, we have found the best Internet security is to use a good hardware firewall, to use Firefox rather than Internet Explorer as a browser, and to disable ActiveX ( not available in Firefox ), Java script, cookies, images, media players and various other browser options. We also avoid opening any Internet attachments except in rare circumstances. We miss some benefits of the Internet by taking these steps, but they do help minimize intrusion problems.
Robbie

It is nearly feature-complete, if that is what you mean by final, and if no new decisions affecting the feature set are made (always possible).
I am happy with it as a beta. I would not be happy with it as a final.
"Beck" wrote in message

I tried the old beta a few months ago and it was very flaky and buggy. I downloaded the new one the other day but something went wrong with it and the product keys that were sent to me. So I ordered the DVD. I am downloading it again to try a second time (3hrs left maybe I wasted £12 on buying it).
Anyway I am just wondering how stable this new version is? From what I understand its the final version before release next year (except for bug fixes).
I did like Vista when I tried it but one of my bugbears was the new layout for programs. Alot of things took more clicks to get to and things didn't seem to have that easy to find process that XP has. I know, it will just be a case of getting used to the new layout but some things felt unnecessarily longwinded.
For those that tried the other betas, have things changed much in the latest version? How is stability?
IIRC my laptop scored 2 in the performance scale. 1.5Ghz processor, 1Gb ram and 128mb min of graphics. So its not the greatest specification. Once I get it installed I will probably tone down the graphics and have it running on basic. I am not one for fancy desktops, I just want to functionality.

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 07:23:37 -0400, Robert Robinson wrote:

The current Vista beta #5384 is very stable. We have had no hangs or BSOD and the OS is generally working properly. We has disabled as many of the "security features" as is possible, logon as Administrator, and use Firefox and Thunderbird for Internet communications. We would certainly not use Internet Explorer if there was an alternate application program. The big question is what is left in Vista, after the above changes, that makes it any improvement over Windows 2003 Server/XT ? The answer to this question is unknown at this time.
Robbie

Exactly the same here Robbie, everything disabled and running in Admin using FF & Tbird not IE7 would not touch it with a 10 foot pole.. Much prettier GUI but thats about it really. OTOH it is pretty stable and nice to use but one wonders why bother as most of the promised features which would have made it the best MSFT OS yet have been either badly implemented (UAC) or removed altogether to meet unrealistic launch deadlines.
Still its not the final version yet so there is time to make it worth our while, can't see it myself though there is not enough to warrant the expense of upgrading from a (small) buisness POV. It will be very hard to sell in its current form.
Jonah

Robert Robinson wrote:

Kerry Brown wrote: Robert Robinson wrote:
The current Vista beta #5384 is very stable. We have had no hangs or BSOD and the OS is generally working properly. We has disabled as many of the "security features" as is possible, logon as Administrator, and use Firefox and Thunderbird for Internet communications. We would certainly not use Internet Explorer if there was an alternate application program. The big question is what is left in Vista, after the above changes, that makes it any improvement over Windows 2003 Server/XT ? The answer to this question is unknown at this time.
Robbie
You should try to run it with the security enabled. The whole point of running Beta 2 is to find problems. If you have problems running with security enabled report the problems. Running as you do you may as well be using XP. The big improvement over XP is the different security model which you are trying to defeat. There is no comparison with Server 2003 as Vista Beta 2 is not a server OS.
Hi Kerry,
A server version of Vista (Longhorn) is available and we have evaluated it. I do agree that users should test the Microsoft security features. We have tried them and have previously commented on their functionality. Our primary concern is the security risk of outside connections; that is, the Internet, Wi-Fi and other network communications. There is no absolute way to protect against intrusion by someone who gains physical access to a computer, regardless of whether or not the data may be encrypted. Microsoft has a dismal history regarding computer security problems, but they certainly deserve credit for correcting security problems as they have been identified and for trying to improve their application program and operating system security. As noted in another message, we have found the best Internet security is to use a good hardware firewall, to use Firefox rather than Internet Explorer as a browser, and to disable ActiveX ( not available in Firefox ), Java script, cookies, images, media players and various other browser options. We also avoid opening any Internet attachments except in rare circumstances. We miss some benefits of the Internet by taking these steps, but they do help minimize intrusion problems. Robbie

I don't know of any small computer OS's that are secure if you have physical access. I haven't had time to do more than a cursory trial but bitlocker seems to be as secure as anything else if physical security is needed.
I still think you are missing the point about Vista security. If you setup a standard user and use IE 7 in it's default configuration it is more secure than Firefox running with an adminstrator account. Firefox with a standard user would be better yet. I have purposely tried to trash Vista from a standard user account and haven't been able to do more than trash that account. Spyware can be installed but you are often warned by UAC first and so far I have been able to easily remove it manually when logged in to an admin account. The spyware was not able to escape from the user account to the system unless I repeatedly ignored UAC warnings. This may cahnge as the spyware programmers play with Vista.
As for network security again that problem exists with all OS's. I don't see that Vista is any more or any less secure than other OS's when communicating on the network. The default is a compromise between security and ease of use. If needed you can make it very secure with IPSec etc.. If you use strong passwords, run as a standard user, and secure your servers it would take a very determined and knowledgable hacker to get into your system. This person could probably get into other OS's as well. It would take knowing a password or sophisticated network sniffing with physical access. Ths can be done with wireless regardless of what OS the workstations are running. If you use wireless you also need to use encrypted communication on the network (i.e. IPSec). If they can get into your physical network from the Internet then the Internet gateway itself is not secure.
You are complaining about security but then disabling it. In Linux would you run as root? Try Vista as a standard user. It is regrettable that Microsoft doesn't setup a standard user on install.
It's an interesting discussion. If you have discovered some security flaws that refute what I am saying please let me know.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Hi Kerry,
UNIX/Linux user privileges are quite different from those of Vista. You don't need to run as super user or root on a routine basis because it is a simple matter to change to root as required with entry of the proper password. When you upgrade privileges with UNIX/NT to super user, you are a real super user. This isn't true with Vista. As has been discussed in detail on this forum, giving a user administrative privileges is not the same as carrying out operations as "Administrator". UNIX/Linux user privileges generally function in a user friendly, appropriate function. Vista privileges has some very quirky behavior. It bothers me that a user with administrative privileges ( not Administrator) can change permission on a directory from read to write using Windows Explorer. The permission then automatically reverts to read after exiting from Windows Explorer. Oddly enough, if you just minimize Windows Explorer other programs can then write into the "protected" directory until such time that Windows Explorer is exited.
Robbie

Beck wrote:

"Kerry Brown" wrote in message I have a test system with very similar specs. I want to test how Vista runs on minimal hardware. I do not use Aero Glass as the graphics card doesn't have WDDM drivers. It is slower than XP on the same machine. I was however pleasantly surprised to find that the system is usable. I use Office 2007 Beta and Expressions Web Design Beta on it. It is a viable computer for Office, Outlook connected to Exchange, and light web design work. Beta 2 is more stable than previous versions but it is possible to mess it up. The worst problem I've had so far was messing up a user profile by going to java.com and letting it install java online. IE 7 quit working for that profile. It only affected the user I used to install java (a standard user). I was able to logon as an administrator and fix the problem by uninstalling the version of java that was loaded automatically and installing the proper beta version for Vista. I recommend setting up a standard user and running as that user. This way it's hard to mess up the system. This also seems to mitigate the impact of UAC. If you try to do something that needs admin privileges it usually only asks you once for an admin user name and password then performs the task. If you are actually logged on as the admin you keep getting multiple UAC prompts for the same task. This is one experience only on a very plain jane system - Vista Beta 2 32 bit installed on a P4 1.6 GHz, 1 GB ram, Intel 845 chipset, ATI Radeon 7000 AGP with 64 MB, one PATA 20 GB hard drive, and one combo CD/DVD burner. On a laptop you may run into driver problems.
Thats something I wish to switch off - the security prompts everytime I wish to change a setting. Would you know where that is please?

Run as a standard user and it's less intrusive. If you must run as an administrator you can turn it off in the control panel in the user configuration, in msconfig, in the registry, and probably more places as well.
-- Kerry MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

For the most part, I am enjoying Vista beta 2. It is refreshing when it comes to finding files via the search features. Search is almost everywhere. Granted there are a few bugs, but that is to be expected being beta :). I honestly feel that with all the bug reports that are being sent in, RC1 will be even better.
It works great with Office 2007 beta 2. I haven't had any issues with running the software. Windows Sidebar is an awesome feature. I am sure glad that it is part of Vista.
I for 1 will be purchasing Vista when it is released next year.
Jason
"Beck" wrote in message

I tried the old beta a few months ago and it was very flaky and buggy. I downloaded the new one the other day but something went wrong with it and the product keys that were sent to me. So I ordered the DVD. I am downloading it again to try a second time (3hrs left maybe I wasted £12 on buying it).
Anyway I am just wondering how stable this new version is? From what I understand its the final version before release next year (except for bug fixes).
I did like Vista when I tried it but one of my bugbears was the new layout for programs. Alot of things took more clicks to get to and things didn't seem to have that easy to find process that XP has. I know, it will just be a case of getting used to the new layout but some things felt unnecessarily longwinded.
For those that tried the other betas, have things changed much in the latest version? How is stability?
IIRC my laptop scored 2 in the performance scale. 1.5Ghz processor, 1Gb ram and 128mb min of graphics. So its not the greatest specification. Once I get it installed I will probably tone down the graphics and have it running on basic. I am not one for fancy desktops, I just want to functionality.

"Jason" wrote in message

For the most part, I am enjoying Vista beta 2. It is refreshing when it comes to finding files via the search features. >Search is almost everywhere. Granted there are a few bugs, but that is to be expected being beta :). I honestly feel >that with all the bug reports that are being sent in, RC1 will be even better. It works great with Office 2007 beta 2. I haven't had any issues with running the software. Windows Sidebar is an >awesome feature. I am sure glad that it is part of Vista. I for 1 will be purchasing Vista when it is released next year.

I will buy it depending on the price. I am not rich so will definitely go with an OEM version if there is one. If not then it will be an upgrade.

"Robert Robinson" wrote in message

Hi Kerry,
UNIX/Linux user privileges are quite different from those of Vista. You don't need to run as super user or root on a routine basis because it is a simple matter to change to root as required with entry of the proper password. When you upgrade privileges with UNIX/NT to super user, you are a real super user. This isn't true with Vista. As has been discussed in detail on this forum, giving a user administrative privileges is not the same as carrying out operations as "Administrator". UNIX/Linux user privileges generally function in a user friendly, appropriate function. Vista privileges has some very quirky behavior. It bothers me that a user with administrative privileges ( not Administrator) can change permission on a directory from read to write using Windows Explorer. The permission then automatically reverts to read after exiting from Windows Explorer. Oddly enough, if you just minimize Windows Explorer other programs can then write into the "protected" directory until such time that Windows Explorer is exited.
Robbie

You are still talking about running Vista with administrator privileges. Have you tried it as a standard user? It works very much like Linux. I am doing all my testing as a standard user on the local computer while logged on to an AD domain. I have not joined the user to the local administrators group. On the domain the user only has domain user privileges. If you try to do something that requires elevated privileges locally you are prompted for a user name and password. Once you give the user name and password the task runs with elevated privileges. This is the same behavior I see in Fedora FC5 which I have running on my laptop. It is similar to other distros I've tried. The UAC prompt is noticeably less intrusive. I am easily able to do my day to day computing without elevated privileges. I admit I am using mostly Microsoft beta software which is designed for Vista. If and when Vista replaces XP as the OS of choice I believe most software will work with this model. Of course there are always companies like Intuit, Sage, and most game developers that insist on elevated privileges all the time. Hopefully Vista will wean them from this sloppy programming :-)
I do agree that running as an administrator account can be frustrating with all the UAC prompts. I think Microsoft is over reacting to the hoopla about weak security in XP. There are also some inconsistencies that need to be worked out. Some areas of the hard drive are only accessible when logged in as the actual Administrator account. You have mentioned another instance where an account with administrator privileges differs from the Administrator account. What happens if the Administrator account profile gets corrupted? I haven't found a way to create an equivalent account. I think Microsoft should change the default install to setup a standard account, a second true Administrator account, all with passwords, and default to the standard account.
-- Kerry Brown MS-MVP - Windows Shell/User

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:26:16 -0700, "Kerry Brown" wrote:
snip

I do agree that running as an administrator account can be frustrating with all the UAC prompts. I think Microsoft is over reacting to the hoopla about weak security in XP. There are also some inconsistencies that need to be worked out. Some areas of the hard drive are only accessible when logged in as the actual Administrator account. You have mentioned another instance where an account with administrator privileges differs from the Administrator account. What happens if the Administrator account profile gets corrupted? I haven't found a way to create an equivalent account. I think Microsoft should change the default install to setup a standard account, a second true Administrator account, all with passwords, and default to the standard account.

Yeah Kerry that would be a lot better, the current system is a bit of a dogs' dinner.
Jonah

Black? Where are you seeing black? The Aero Theme is not black. Perhaps you are having a video driver issue.
"Beck" wrote in message

"William R. Mosher" wrote in message
So far, after a couple of weeks, I think this is the best beta OS so far. I have not had a crash, everything works. The more I use Vista Explorer, the more I like it. I think the change in the interface of Office (except in Outlook) is much more dramatic than in Vista.
Just managed to install mine today and everything is fine. Running glass with no problems at all or slowdown which is surprising. Not sure I like the black though, hoping they have other colours.

Performance and glitches in some of the features. It is beta. What can I say?
"Beck" wrote in message

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message It is nearly feature-complete, if that is what you mean by final, and if no new decisions affecting the feature set are made (always possible).
I am happy with it as a beta. I would not be happy with it as a final.
If it was final, what aspects would you have not been happy about?

I love using the *Standard Account* in Windows Vista because if an operation or task requires more privileges the UAC request me a password (of my other administrator account) and so I'm able temporarily to run an application or that task without any problems and all other tasks are still running as Standard and so my system is safer. The first Windows Vista account created in this beta2 is *not* a Standard Account but it's an Administrator protected by UAC, so if you really want to try a Standard Account you should create a new Standard Account by yourself and always use it!

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

Black? Where are you seeing black? The Aero Theme is not black. Perhaps you are having a video driver issue.

Nah I thought I had glass but it appears I do not even though my drivers supprt wddm

I advise you against buying an OEM dvd (with the customary piece of hardware). You will get no support whatsoever. Buy the retail upgrade edition so that you get support from PSS. You would probably be buying Home Basic (if that's how retail packaging works out). Use Instant Upgrade to reach the edition you want.
"Beck" wrote in message

"Jason" wrote in message For the most part, I am enjoying Vista beta 2. It is refreshing when it comes to finding files via the search features. >Search is almost everywhere. Granted there are a few bugs, but that is to be expected being beta :). I honestly feel >that with all the bug reports that are being sent in, RC1 will be even better. It works great with Office 2007 beta 2. I haven't had any issues with running the software. Windows Sidebar is an >awesome feature. I am sure glad that it is part of Vista. I for 1 will be purchasing Vista when it is released next year.
I will buy it depending on the price. I am not rich so will definitely go with an OEM version if there is one. If not then it will be an upgrade.

I too am very happy with Vista and it is the only OS on my main computer. My other computer is running XP Pro. It is a Dell P3-500, so it will never be upgraded to Vista. So far, I am impressed with how stable Vista is. Now that I am getting use to the way things are dome in Vista, XP seems just a little strange. As for security, I would rather lean to the side of caution than leave everything open for any one to do stuff to my computer. It is a big improvement on XP. The only things, beside bug fixes, that I would like to see is increased speed. so far Beta 2 (5383) is much faster than the previous betas, but could be a tick faster.
William "Jason" wrote in message For the most part, I am enjoying Vista beta 2. It is refreshing when it comes to finding files via the search features. Search is almost everywhere. Granted there are a few bugs, but that is to be expected being beta :). I honestly feel that with all the bug reports that are being sent in, RC1 will be even better.
It works great with Office 2007 beta 2. I haven't had any issues with running the software. Windows Sidebar is an awesome feature. I am sure glad that it is part of Vista.
I for 1 will be purchasing Vista when it is released next year.
Jason
"Beck" wrote in message

I tried the old beta a few months ago and it was very flaky and buggy. I downloaded the new one the other day but something went wrong with it and the product keys that were sent to me. So I ordered the DVD. I am downloading it again to try a second time (3hrs left maybe I wasted £12 on buying it).
Anyway I am just wondering how stable this new version is? From what I understand its the final version before release next year (except for bug fixes).
I did like Vista when I tried it but one of my bugbears was the new layout for programs. Alot of things took more clicks to get to and things didn't seem to have that easy to find process that XP has. I know, it will just be a case of getting used to the new layout but some things felt unnecessarily longwinded.
For those that tried the other betas, have things changed much in the latest version? How is stability?
IIRC my laptop scored 2 in the performance scale. 1.5Ghz processor, 1Gb ram and 128mb min of graphics. So its not the greatest specification. Once I get it installed I will probably tone down the graphics and have it running on basic. I am not one for fancy desktops, I just want to functionality.

If you see WDDM beside the card in Device Manager then you certainly should have Glass. Do you know what is interfering?
"Beck" wrote in message

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message Black? Where are you seeing black? The Aero Theme is not black. Perhaps you are having a video driver issue.
Nah I thought I had glass but it appears I do not even though my drivers supprt wddm

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

If you see WDDM beside the card in Device Manager then you certainly should have Glass. Do you know what is interfering?

Nah unfortunately it does not have WDDM in the description or by the name. I was obviously wrong about it being supported.

I think he means the taskbar, Windows Mail Title bar, right hand side of Windows Start Menu(dark grey with some transparency), Outlook is also Black...etc It is definately "darker" than standard XP/MCE.
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

Black? Where are you seeing black? The Aero Theme is not black. Perhaps you are having a video driver issue.
"Beck" wrote in message
"William R. Mosher" wrote in message
So far, after a couple of weeks, I think this is the best beta OS so far. I have not had a crash, everything works. The more I use Vista Explorer, the more I like it. I think the change in the interface of Office (except in Outlook) is much more dramatic than in Vista.
Just managed to install mine today and everything is fine. Running glass with no problems at all or slowdown which is surprising. Not sure I like the black though, hoping they have other colours.

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

I advise you against buying an OEM dvd (with the customary piece of hardware). You will get no support whatsoever. Buy the retail upgrade edition so that you get support from PSS. You would probably be buying Home Basic (if that's how retail packaging works out). Use Instant Upgrade to reach the edition you want.

Thanks, that is probably what I would do is to get the upgrade. Not sure what version I would get but it would probably be the home basic one, depending on what features I may be missing.

Sorry about that.
"Beck" wrote in message

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message If you see WDDM beside the card in Device Manager then you certainly should have Glass. Do you know what is interfering?
Nah unfortunately it does not have WDDM in the description or by the name. I was obviously wrong about it being supported.

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

Sorry about that.

Its no problem :-) I have always said that functionality was more important than pretty looks. It would have been nice to see it in action, but I look on the bright side - it would have used system resources anyway ;-)

"NoNoBadDog!" wrote in message

The current version is BETA 2; There will still be at least a Release Candidate (RC 1); and possibly an RC2.
It does not matter what experiences others are having. The only way you'll know if it is for you is to try it.

Of course everybody's experiences would be different, I was just curious as to whether people were happy with it or not.

"William R. Mosher" wrote in message

So far, after a couple of weeks, I think this is the best beta OS so far. I have not had a crash, everything works. The more I use Vista Explorer, the more I like it. I think the change in the interface of Office (except in Outlook) is much more dramatic than in Vista.

Just managed to install mine today and everything is fine. Running glass with no problems at all or slowdown which is surprising. Not sure I like the black though, hoping they have other colours.

"Robert Robinson" wrote in message

The current Vista beta #5384 is very stable. We have had no hangs or BSOD and the OS is generally working properly. We has disabled as many of the "security features" as is possible, logon as Administrator, and use Firefox and Thunderbird for Internet communications. We would certainly not use Internet Explorer if there was an alternate application program. The big question is what is left in Vista, after the above changes, that makes it any improvement over Windows 2003 Server/XT ? The answer to this question is unknown at this time.

Yesterday for something to do I reinstalled an old beta. It was extremely buggy and unusable. I dropped the theme down to basic but still problematic and freezing, crashing, couldnt operate windows mail. The download for for the public beta just finished today and I have had it installed about an hour now. I am delighted to see that so far there are no problems at all. MS have definitely optimised the code, its not sluggish, glass runs perfectly (so far in) and I am really happy with it. I can actually use windows mail. lol So far bug free. I have yet to push it with some graphics applications, I am saving that for another day.

"Kerry Brown" wrote in message

I have a test system with very similar specs. I want to test how Vista runs on minimal hardware. I do not use Aero Glass as the graphics card doesn't have WDDM drivers. It is slower than XP on the same machine. I was however pleasantly surprised to find that the system is usable. I use Office 2007 Beta and Expressions Web Design Beta on it. It is a viable computer for Office, Outlook connected to Exchange, and light web design work. Beta 2 is more stable than previous versions but it is possible to mess it up. The worst problem I've had so far was messing up a user profile by going to java.com and letting it install java online. IE 7 quit working for that profile. It only affected the user I used to install java (a standard user). I was able to logon as an administrator and fix the problem by uninstalling the version of java that was loaded automatically and installing the proper beta version for Vista. I recommend setting up a standard user and running as that user. This way it's hard to mess up the system. This also seems to mitigate the impact of UAC. If you try to do something that needs admin privileges it usually only asks you once for an admin user name and password then performs the task. If you are actually logged on as the admin you keep getting multiple UAC prompts for the same task.
This is one experience only on a very plain jane system - Vista Beta 2 32 bit installed on a P4 1.6 GHz, 1 GB ram, Intel 845 chipset, ATI Radeon 7000 AGP with 64 MB, one PATA 20 GB hard drive, and one combo CD/DVD burner. On a laptop you may run into driver problems.

Thats something I wish to switch off - the security prompts everytime I wish to change a setting. Would you know where that is please?

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message

It is nearly feature-complete, if that is what you mean by final, and if no new decisions affecting the feature set are made (always possible).
I am happy with it as a beta. I would not be happy with it as a final.

If it was final, what aspects would you have not been happy about?

I have a Dell Dimension E510 and I DEFINATLY plan on upgrading to the GM Vista when it comes out. I thing I do not regret is getting a Dell windows OEM disk as opposed to a Dell system restore disk (restores ther system to the way it was with all Dell's crap on it.)
"William R. Mosher" wrote in message I too am very happy with Vista and it is the only OS on my main computer. My other computer is running XP Pro. It is a Dell P3-500, so it will never be upgraded to Vista. So far, I am impressed with how stable Vista is. Now that I am getting use to the way things are dome in Vista, XP seems just a little strange. As for security, I would rather lean to the side of caution than leave everything open for any one to do stuff to my computer. It is a big improvement on XP. The only things, beside bug fixes, that I would like to see is increased speed. so far Beta 2 (5383) is much faster than the previous betas, but could be a tick faster.
William "Jason" wrote in message For the most part, I am enjoying Vista beta 2. It is refreshing when it comes to finding files via the search features. Search is almost everywhere. Granted there are a few bugs, but that is to be expected being beta :). I honestly feel that with all the bug reports that are being sent in, RC1 will be even better.
It works great with Office 2007 beta 2. I haven't had any issues with running the software. Windows Sidebar is an awesome feature. I am sure glad that it is part of Vista.
I for 1 will be purchasing Vista when it is released next year.
Jason
"Beck" wrote in message

I tried the old beta a few months ago and it was very flaky and buggy. I downloaded the new one the other day but something went wrong with it and the product keys that were sent to me. So I ordered the DVD. I am downloading it again to try a second time (3hrs left maybe I wasted £12 on buying it).
Anyway I am just wondering how stable this new version is? From what I understand its the final version before release next year (except for bug fixes).
I did like Vista when I tried it but one of my bugbears was the new layout for programs. Alot of things took more clicks to get to and things didn't seem to have that easy to find process that XP has. I know, it will just be a case of getting used to the new layout but some things felt unnecessarily longwinded.
For those that tried the other betas, have things changed much in the latest version? How is stability?
IIRC my laptop scored 2 in the performance scale. 1.5Ghz processor, 1Gb ram and 128mb min of graphics. So its not the greatest specification. Once I get it installed I will probably tone down the graphics and have it running on basic. I am not one for fancy desktops, I just want to functionality.

Good move. It means that you can do neat stuff like a repair install and have a cd to supply if you need to run system file checker. Most users underestimate just how important that can be. Another thing you can do with an OEM disk is create a slipstreamed cd to incorporate a new service pack when one releases.
"Jim Fraas" wrote in message

I have a Dell Dimension E510 and I DEFINATLY plan on upgrading to the GM Vista when it comes out. I thing I do not regret is getting a Dell windows OEM disk as opposed to a Dell system restore disk (restores ther system to the way it was with all Dell's crap on it.)
"William R. Mosher" wrote in message I too am very happy with Vista and it is the only OS on my main computer. My other computer is running XP Pro. It is a Dell P3-500, so it will never be upgraded to Vista. So far, I am impressed with how stable Vista is. Now that I am getting use to the way things are dome in Vista, XP seems just a little strange. As for security, I would rather lean to the side of caution than leave everything open for any one to do stuff to my computer. It is a big improvement on XP. The only things, beside bug fixes, that I would like to see is increased speed. so far Beta 2 (5383) is much faster than the previous betas, but could be a tick faster.
William "Jason" wrote in message For the most part, I am enjoying Vista beta 2. It is refreshing when it comes to finding files via the search features. Search is almost everywhere. Granted there are a few bugs, but that is to be expected being beta :). I honestly feel that with all the bug reports that are being sent in, RC1 will be even better.
It works great with Office 2007 beta 2. I haven't had any issues with running the software. Windows Sidebar is an awesome feature. I am sure glad that it is part of Vista.
I for 1 will be purchasing Vista when it is released next year.
Jason
"Beck" wrote in message I tried the old beta a few months ago and it was very flaky and buggy. I downloaded the new one the other day but something went wrong with it and the product keys that were sent to me. So I ordered the DVD. I am downloading it again to try a second time (3hrs left maybe I wasted £12 on buying it).
Anyway I am just wondering how stable this new version is? From what I understand its the final version before release next year (except for bug fixes).
I did like Vista when I tried it but one of my bugbears was the new layout for programs. Alot of things took more clicks to get to and things didn't seem to have that easy to find process that XP has. I know, it will just be a case of getting used to the new layout but some things felt unnecessarily longwinded.
For those that tried the other betas, have things changed much in the latest version? How is stability?
IIRC my laptop scored 2 in the performance scale. 1.5Ghz processor, 1Gb ram and 128mb min of graphics. So its not the greatest specification. Once I get it installed I will probably tone down the graphics and have it running on basic. I am not one for fancy desktops, I just want to functionality.

I am terribly happy with it. everything that used to work with XP works with Vista, and it appears more smooth, more easy to use than XP. After one week, I did not encounter any problem using it.

I am happy as a clam with Vista Beta 2.
William
olivierm wrote:

I am terribly happy with it. everything that used to work with XP works with Vista, and it appears more smooth, more easy to use than XP. After one week, I did not encounter any problem using it.

Here is how it went so far...
1. Was able to install it okay. I made recovery disks of my XP and read through many of the forums before I started.
2. Had to do a repair on my Microsoft programs but after I did they run fine, actually faster than in XP.
3. Connected to networks and internet fine.
4. Was getting the blue screen of death, but after uninstalling Real Player and AOL, that does not happen anymore.
5. Had to get rid of the antivirus software I had, downloaded Avast based on one of the forums.
Am going to work on my printerinstallation tonight.
Suggestions:
Back up all data,make sure you know where your recovery CD's are, set aside easilly an afternoon, test, test, test.
Suggestions to Microsoft:
Make the installation process easier!
"Beck" wrote:

I tried the old beta a few months ago and it was very flaky and buggy. I downloaded the new one the other day but something went wrong with it and the product keys that were sent to me. So I ordered the DVD. I am downloading it again to try a second time (3hrs left maybe I wasted £12 on buying it).
Anyway I am just wondering how stable this new version is? From what I understand its the final version before release next year (except for bug fixes).
I did like Vista when I tried it but one of my bugbears was the new layout for programs. Alot of things took more clicks to get to and things didn't seem to have that easy to find process that XP has. I know, it will just be a case of getting used to the new layout but some things felt unnecessarily longwinded.
For those that tried the other betas, have things changed much in the latest version? How is stability?
IIRC my laptop scored 2 in the performance scale. 1.5Ghz processor, 1Gb ram and 128mb min of graphics. So its not the greatest specification. Once I get it installed I will probably tone down the graphics and have it running on basic. I am not one for fancy desktops, I just want to functionality.