Conclusion... for Now
Overall, in order to rate Vista we have two different competitors we need to look at: MacOS X "Tiger" and Windows XP. Although Vista is the same operating system in both cases, how well it performs is all relative to what it is being compared against.
Vista vs. Tiger
If you read our initial Beta 2 preview, then you can stop reading now as Vista has not changed enough to drastically alter our view on this comparison. In short, Mac enthusiasts can breathe a sigh of relief because Vista won't be causing a reverse-switching phenomenon any time soon. Vista is good, good enough that it will stop the hemorrhaging and greatly reduce the number of switchers for the time being. However it's not better than Tiger for Mac users and it isn't going to pull anyone back, so the operating systems are at a stalemate at the moment until Leopard and/or Vista SP1.
In Microsoft's corner, Vista's file-I/O improvements keep it solidly ahead of Tiger. The SuperFetch family of abilities is clearly beyond Tiger, as Tiger's own caching system doesn't have the speed or refinement to match what Vista can do and it makes a remarkable difference. System Restore/Volume Shadow Copy is also well beyond what Tiger can do, and although this is apt to start debates at VSC versus Apple's already-revealed Time Machine technology, only one of them is in a shipping operating system and that's Vista.
In Apple's corner as we've mentioned before is Exposé, which will continue to weigh heavily in the favor of Apple as it's a simple-but-powerful tool to boost productivity. Apple's other strengths here are also related to their UI, as the Finder is still a better organized file browser than Explorer, and they have done a better job enforcing a consistent look and feel across their own applications and even 3rd-party applications.
In the middle then are their respective application suites, in which there is no clear winner. Windows Calendar is the closest single thing we've seen to being an Apple knockoff (it's iCal) while Internet Explorer 7+ is the new benchmark for Safari. Meanwhile iTunes does a much better job as a media player than Windows Media Player, and Windows Mail with phishing protection keeps users safer than Mail.app's security-through-minority nature which doesn't prevent phishing.
Given how long Vista was in development and how long after Tiger it is being released, it's almost a bit sad to see that Microsoft couldn't come up with something that was far above and beyond Tiger. Leopard will undoubtedly change things again, but for now Vista could have surpassed Tiger only if Microsoft had done more sensible things with the UI. Nonetheless Windows users will be happy to have a version of Windows that finally isn't lagging behind MacOS X.
Vista vs. XP
Among those that won't become switchers, Microsoft's own worst enemy is itself, as it needs to prove that Vista is a worthwhile upgrade to XP when XP is already so refined. For many users in the consumer space, Vista is simply a version of Windows where (to borrow a quote from Field of Dreams) "If you build it, they will come." These people will get Vista on their new computers and they'll like it because it is good, but having never had the chance to decide if they didn't want it.
For everyone else who does get a choice, more often than not we believe the choice will be Vista. As we've stated before it's not perfect, but it's quite good. There are some very good reasons not to use it in some cases (system requirements, compatibility, and OpenGL performance), but for those machines that the above do not apply to, there are numerous useful features in Vista that warrant an upgrade if you find that you're the kind of person that will use them. Vista's SuperFetch and Search technology are both reasons enough to migrate from XP, as they easily improve productivity and performance.
Vista is a worthy upgrade and an even better choice as an operating system for a new computer. At the same time there's still ample room to grow; hopefully we'll have even fewer complaints once Service Pack 1 is released later this year. Hopefully Microsoft will spend some time improving features as opposed to simply bug fixing, though, as right now some of the design decisions still need work.
Overall, in order to rate Vista we have two different competitors we need to look at: MacOS X "Tiger" and Windows XP. Although Vista is the same operating system in both cases, how well it performs is all relative to what it is being compared against.
Vista vs. Tiger
If you read our initial Beta 2 preview, then you can stop reading now as Vista has not changed enough to drastically alter our view on this comparison. In short, Mac enthusiasts can breathe a sigh of relief because Vista won't be causing a reverse-switching phenomenon any time soon. Vista is good, good enough that it will stop the hemorrhaging and greatly reduce the number of switchers for the time being. However it's not better than Tiger for Mac users and it isn't going to pull anyone back, so the operating systems are at a stalemate at the moment until Leopard and/or Vista SP1.
In Microsoft's corner, Vista's file-I/O improvements keep it solidly ahead of Tiger. The SuperFetch family of abilities is clearly beyond Tiger, as Tiger's own caching system doesn't have the speed or refinement to match what Vista can do and it makes a remarkable difference. System Restore/Volume Shadow Copy is also well beyond what Tiger can do, and although this is apt to start debates at VSC versus Apple's already-revealed Time Machine technology, only one of them is in a shipping operating system and that's Vista.
In Apple's corner as we've mentioned before is Exposé, which will continue to weigh heavily in the favor of Apple as it's a simple-but-powerful tool to boost productivity. Apple's other strengths here are also related to their UI, as the Finder is still a better organized file browser than Explorer, and they have done a better job enforcing a consistent look and feel across their own applications and even 3rd-party applications.
In the middle then are their respective application suites, in which there is no clear winner. Windows Calendar is the closest single thing we've seen to being an Apple knockoff (it's iCal) while Internet Explorer 7+ is the new benchmark for Safari. Meanwhile iTunes does a much better job as a media player than Windows Media Player, and Windows Mail with phishing protection keeps users safer than Mail.app's security-through-minority nature which doesn't prevent phishing.
Given how long Vista was in development and how long after Tiger it is being released, it's almost a bit sad to see that Microsoft couldn't come up with something that was far above and beyond Tiger. Leopard will undoubtedly change things again, but for now Vista could have surpassed Tiger only if Microsoft had done more sensible things with the UI. Nonetheless Windows users will be happy to have a version of Windows that finally isn't lagging behind MacOS X.
Vista vs. XP
Among those that won't become switchers, Microsoft's own worst enemy is itself, as it needs to prove that Vista is a worthwhile upgrade to XP when XP is already so refined. For many users in the consumer space, Vista is simply a version of Windows where (to borrow a quote from Field of Dreams) "If you build it, they will come." These people will get Vista on their new computers and they'll like it because it is good, but having never had the chance to decide if they didn't want it.
For everyone else who does get a choice, more often than not we believe the choice will be Vista. As we've stated before it's not perfect, but it's quite good. There are some very good reasons not to use it in some cases (system requirements, compatibility, and OpenGL performance), but for those machines that the above do not apply to, there are numerous useful features in Vista that warrant an upgrade if you find that you're the kind of person that will use them. Vista's SuperFetch and Search technology are both reasons enough to migrate from XP, as they easily improve productivity and performance.
Vista is a worthy upgrade and an even better choice as an operating system for a new computer. At the same time there's still ample room to grow; hopefully we'll have even fewer complaints once Service Pack 1 is released later this year. Hopefully Microsoft will spend some time improving features as opposed to simply bug fixing, though, as right now some of the design decisions still need work.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
105 Comments
View All Comments
redpriest_ - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
Did you guys run the 64-bit tests solely on the Intel Conroe platform? Or did you test an AMD based platform as well? Recall that Conroe has a few performance enhancing features that *only* work in 32-bit mode (branch fusioning, for one - some decoder limitations as well).That could explain why a Core 2 Duo system might have seemed slower in 64-bit than in 32-bit mode.
Jeff7181 - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
SuperFetch is by far my favorite new feature of Vista. I put my first copy of Vista on my laptop, which has a 5400 RPM hard drive. Opening apps Outlook and VB .NET 2005 EE weren't really slow under XP, but there were those few extra seconds it took to load that would often leave me tapping my finger on the palm rest while I waited. Now under Vista, Outlook, VB .NET 2005 EE, and IE7 all seem to be able to fit in the SuperFetch cache, as they all open nearly instantly with just 1 GB of RAM. I'm considering upgrading to 2 GB just to see what else I can get to open really fast. :Dbldckstark - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
Was superfetch disabled when you tried the Readyboost feature in Vista? Whichever way you ran the test it bears mentioning. If it was off, then how does it do with it on? If it was on, it may make a difference in how it relates to XP.Also, as I understand it Vista has a system backup now that creates a "ghost" of the drive. Could you check out this feature and get back to us?
JarredWalton - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
I'm not sure it's possible to disable SuperFetch, so I'm pretty sure all testing was done with it on. As far as the "ghost" goes, that's part of System Restore which can be disabled quite easily. I'll have to let the other editors say whether it was enabled or not, though.WT - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
What drives me nuts are the plentiful comments about how slow Vista is compared to XP. I mean, anybody hear this before when MS came out with a new OS ? Same thing for XP,W2k,98 ... ad nauseum. Yea, its a new Operating System with more 'toys' built in, what were you expecting ? You aren't gonna load it on your P3/256 RAM rig and enjoy the Vista 'experience'. Damn, this thing runs better than XP on my rig !It's understood that it won't be as quick (keep in mind the OS has been available for retail purchase ... 2 days now) as XP, but drivers will improve that performance gap to a smaller number within 3 months time. I waited until just last year to upgrade to XP (W2K all the way for me !) but find myself with 2 copies of Vista and would prefer to dual boot one and go Vista all-out on the other one.
I griped back in my W2K days about being forced to upgrade due to content (MS games were announced that would only run in XP) so this time around I will be ready.
DX10? Marketing genius !!! We shall force an upgrade upon the masses !! I upgrade frequently, so DX10 and its graphical splendor is a priority, but if I would have to fork over $200 to actually buy Vista, I would be less than impresssed with DX10 eye candy.
EODetroit - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
Hopefully, now, finally, Anandtech will start testing motherboards for stability while loaded with the maximum amount of memory. So if the MB supposedly supports 8GB of RAM, you test it with that much, and make sure its stable. I've wanted this done for years... memory is expensive and it sucks to load a MB up and find out it doesn't really work or only works if you cut the speed in half.Thanks.
manno - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
... no mention of DRM then? No mention of Linux? Personally I hate Linux, but I've switched to it because of Vista's use of DRM. Not all Microsoft's fault, but they put it in there... My computer, my hardware, I choose what to do with it, not MS, not media companies. Why shouldn't I be able to watch High def content on my old, and once expensive non-HDMI LCD screen?Get a Mac, Apple is the lesser of 2 evils, they aren't the 800lb gorilla in the room. MS could have told media companies to stuff it. Apple has no choice, it's too small, yet their the ones that forced DRM-Light(TM) on the media companies. MS had the media companied force DRM-Oppressive(TM) on them... how the heck does that work?
I can't believe you left Linux out of the final comparison, is it as capable an OS, yes. Not nearly as user friendly, but it also has 0 DRM, doesn't phone-home isn't beholden to any one entity. I'm not against DRM, as a whole, just Vista's implementation. BS like MS creating D3D to subvert open standards like OpenGL, then removing it from the OS, using it's monopoly-based-ridiculous-margins(TM) to finance D3D's uptake, again rather than take an existing standard and expanding on it. They create their own to reinforce their monopoly. I know why they do this stuff I'm just peeved so many people don't give two flying f...
grr...
-manno
mlambert890 - Friday, February 2, 2007 - link
Youre insane dude.. No offense but there just isnt anything else to say. Posts like these always read like the transcript of a Weather Underground meeting in the sixties. "FIGHT THE POWER!!! FIGHT THE POWER!!!"Look out! The black helicopters have deployed from the underground helipad in Redmond and are circling!!! Send up the penguin symbol to summon the dynamic duo - Torvald and Stallman!
Reflex - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
There is no more or less DRM in Vista than in XP, or even OS X. The platform does not determine the playback of DRM'd media, the content does. The choice is simple: If you want to play back DRM'd media, then you have to support the decryption scheme that the media requires to decode it. In so doing you have to legally accept the limitations defined by that DRM scheme.It is no different for OS X, Linux, XP or any other OS. They either support the DRM schemes or they do not get to playback the media that uses them. This is why it is unlikely that you will be able to play DRM'd High Definition content anytime soon on Linux. That is the alternative, no support for the content at all.
Also, you can play high definition content on Vista just fine without HDMI/HDCP on your monitor. You simply cannot play back such content if it is coupled to a DRM scheme that requires HDCP, but that is true of every OS. Any other HD content will play back without issue.
Again, there is no difference between DRM on Vista from DRM on any other platform.
pmh - Thursday, February 1, 2007 - link
The DRM in vista is the major reason that I will only install it if physically forced to. Having bought a new Dell in order to get their very nice 24" LCD last december, I have an upgrade coupon which will lie unused until/unless the DRM can be disabled. MS refuses to display HD on my new monitor using Vista? Screw em.