February 11, 2009 5:27 PM

Looking At Microsoft's New Vista

By
Lloyd de Vries
(CBS)  V-Day is Tuesday, Jan. 30. That's the day Microsoft ships its consumer versions of Vista, the latest iteration of Microsoft Windows. I know the 30th is a Tuesday because I just typed the word "calendar" into the Vista search box and up popped Vista's new calendar program, which along with its e-mail and contact management software is almost like getting a free copy of Microsoft Outlook without having to buy Microsoft Office.

That search box, by the way, does more than bring up programs. It can find anything on your computer or an accessible drive on your network, even if you don't have a clue of the file name. I typed the word "Robert" into that search box and discovered that I have 1,377 items on my PC that with that name in them. I had no idea I had that many Bobs in my life. The name popped up in Outlook e-mails and contacts (including my old archival files), Microsoft Word documents and even photos and music files which have "metadata" or tags with the name "Robert." And that's just my "indexed" locations. By default, Vista creates an index of files in your personal folder and e-mail folders so that it can perform lightning-fast searches. You can also expand that index to other directories, as I did for my /data directory, where I have 40 gigabytes of documents, music files and photographs.

Some of Vista's most important features are those that don't jump out at you. Microsoft says it's much more secure than Windows XP, but, of course, that remains to be seen. The company reports that it analyzed "more than 1,400 threat models ... to ensure identification of risks that required mitigation, code that needed special attention." In other words, they found a bunch of security holes and say they fixed them. Microsoft also introduced what it calls "Windows Service Hardening" designed to reduce the risk of buffer overflows. They have also initiated "restricted services" to "reduce the number of services that are capable of doing unlimited damage to a user's machine."

Microsoft chairman Bill Gates told San Jose Mercury News columnist Dean Takahashi Microsoft spent $6 billion developing Vista, but you can get it for as little as $99 or as part of the deal the next time you get a new PC. The question is whether or not you should.

First, that $99 figure is for a version of Vista you probably don't want. The company is selling three consumer editions. You can upgrade from Windows XP to Vista Home Basic for $99, to Home Premium for $159 and to Vista Ultimate for $259.

All versions of Vista have the increased security and the new search system, but the reason you probably don't want the basic version is because it lacks some of the cool bells and whistles that make Vista fun to use. These include the "Aero Glass" interface which gives you translucent windows that allow you to get a peek inside a running program without having to actually switch to it. That includes the Flip 3-D effect which lets you look inside Windows when you press Alt-Tab or see tiny thumbnails of running programs on the task bar. It also includes Windows Media Center, which you can use to organize and play your videos, music and photos and, if your PC has a tuner, to watch, rewind and record TV — just like a TiVo. There is also a business edition ($199), but it lacks Media Center and other cool consumer features. The Ultimate edition has it all but at an inflated price with features that most consumers and home-based professionals don't need.

So, unless search and increased security are worth $100 to you, I suspect most people shouldn't bother upgrading to the basic edition. I really like the Home Premium edition, but I question whether it's worth $159. If they were offering the Premium edition for $50, I'd say go for it, unless you're one of the millions of PC users who couldn't run that edition on their existing PC without having to spend a couple of hundred dollars or more upgrading your hardware.

To run the basic version, Microsoft says you need "a modern processor (at least 800 MHz)," 512 MB of system memory and a graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable — that's most PCs in use today.

To run the Premium edition you'll need at least a 1 GHz processor, 1 GB of system memory, support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory and something called Pixel Shader 2.0 (technology in your graphics card that can render surface properties images including lighting and shadows along with 3-D images). You'll also need at least a 40 GB hard drive with 15 GB free space, a DVD-ROM drive, audio output, and an Internet connection. That sounds like a lot of hardware, but almost all machines being sold today qualify, assuming you opt for at least 1 gigabyte of memory. I've read some reports that you'll need two gigabytes for decent performance, but that's not true. I've tested it on a 1 GB machine and it works fine. My desktop PC, which is running the Ultimate Edition (the software was supplied by Microsoft for evaluation purposes), works great on 1.5 GB and I usually run several programs at the same time. To find out which, if any, version of Vista will run on your PC, visit microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/ for a free program that will analyze your machine.

I really like the Premium edition of Vista. It hasn't changed my life but it has made computing a bit more pleasant. Most important, it doesn't crash nearly as often as XP (though I have experienced that dreaded "blue screen of death," probably because of a conflict with one of my device drivers). Still, it's more reliable. I love the new search features and even though the Aero interface is more for show than for productivity, I do like the way it looks. I'm also very impressed with the new Windows Photo Gallery for organizing, editing, printing and uploading photos. It rivals Apple's famed iPhoto for both usefulness and ease of use. It even semi-automates getting rid of red-eye. The new Windows Movie maker is also quite good. I've used it to edit several videos I shot for CBSNews.com and unlike some other video editing programs, it took me very little time to figure out.

Vista also added new ways to browse through your files, including extra large icons that give you a very good idea of what your photos look like and a preview mode in the Windows Explorer file manager that lets you quickly look inside documents, photos and other files without having to open them.

Vista is good, but I still question whether it's worth nearly $160 plus the cost of any hardware upgrades for anyone but those early adapters who love to live on the bleeding edge of technology. For most people, the best way to get Vista is to get it the next time they buy a PC.



A syndicated technology columnist for over two decades, Larry Magid serves as on air Technology Analyst for CBS Radio News. His technology reports can be heard several times a week on the CBS Radio Network. Magid is the author of several books including "The Little PC Book."

By Larry Magid

Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.
Add a Comment See all 15 Comments
by kkcbs January 24, 2007 12:05 PM EST
From your last paragraph: "early adapters who love to live on the bleeding edge...". It's supposed to be "adopters". Is this a subtle way of acknowledging the fact that we are constantly required to adapt to a new OS every so often instead of the OS adapting to us?
Reply to this comment
by January 24, 2007 4:31 AM EST
Those of you suggesting a Mac or Linux still don't get why the great majority of us are still on Windows: the software we want to run isn't ported to either OS!

I an tell you that I'll upgrade to Vista when they can pry Windows 2000 out of my cold, dead hands. My wife bought a new computer with XP, and has had a numer of problems. So far I've had NOTHING that I needed to upgrade Win2K for, and hopefully it will be that way for a long time to come... I don't need the headaches of these new OS's.

I don't remember the last time I had a BSOD, it locked up, or explorer.exe crashed. Explorer has crashed in the past, and I think it has locked up once or twice... but it has been months and months. Why ruin a good track record?

I plan to buy a new computer soon... and I plan to put Windows 2000 on it.
Reply to this comment
by thomderr January 24, 2007 4:23 AM EST
If you have XP2, or whatever, goto Microsoft.com and download the "Vista Upgrade Advisor"
It gave me three pages of changes to make, including removing my high-def sound, Norton Anti-Virus and more. I'll still run XP2 until I give this to my kids. Heck, it's only a year old and a *** good Dell at that!
Reply to this comment
by random_radar January 23, 2007 9:40 PM EST
Sure, I will upgrade to Vista...in about 4 years when they stop supporting my XP.
Reply to this comment
by saransk January 23, 2007 7:25 PM EST
The hardware hit is what will prevent many businesses from upgrading. Increase Microsoft's requirements by 20% to meet decent application speed. The "on-board" graphics that most home and business systems come with won't handle the high end graphics and most don't want to upgrade to a $100 plus video card.
Reps from 2 major vendors have already said they will have to increase system costs to meet the requirements
And the major upgrade - the new file system - was deleted from VISTA.

Too Little - Too Late - Too much cost.
Reply to this comment
by bbirdsr71 January 23, 2007 4:44 PM EST
Windows XP (eXtra Problems)

Great name Microsoft!
Vista:

Very
Insecure
Software
Trojan
Application

or

Very
Insecure
Software
Try
Again

...if you're looking to buy a pc, don't buy a lemon, buy an APPLE


Reply to this comment
by rf35 January 23, 2007 4:26 PM EST
Sure, it sucks%u2026time to upgrade my monitor. But after reading up on the technology, it doesn%u2019t look like Microsoft had much choice. If you want a scapegoat, blame the content providers. They%u2019re the ones shoving this technology down our throats. Or blame Intel for inventing it in the first place. I need a new graphics card anyway, so I guess I might as well spring for the monitor while I%u2019m at it. The people I truly feel sorry for are the Mac users who think this won%u2019t affect them. It will; in fact, it is predicted to ship with the next Mac OS upgrade (Leopard or Panther or whatever). Mr. Fisher on ars technica, sums it up nicely: %u201Cif you think Apple is going to turn down HDCP despite being DRM advocates themselves (Hello, FairPlay!), with the result being that it will be impossible to view new content in full HD on Apple hardware, then you're kidding yourself. DRM in this context is unacceptable...but the studios (so far) are entitled to license their content however they want, and anyone who wants in the game will have to follow suit. This is the equilibrium that exists in the market today, and barring legislation to the contrary, it's going to stay that way.%u201D
Reply to this comment
by marc411 January 23, 2007 3:44 PM EST
cbscrash07:

There are many (free) games for Linux, and also many Windows games will run under a Linux program called wine, which is a (free) program that creates a Windows API interface. It won't run everything, and there's a slight performance hit due to the overhead. Search for "linux windows games" to get an overview.
Reply to this comment
by edjohn66 January 23, 2007 3:24 PM EST
Everyone should just save themselves alot of time and effort and buy themselves a Mac. Better hardware, better software, better OS....
Reply to this comment
by Syndicate January 23, 2007 2:27 PM EST
"I suggest to anyone thinking of upgrading to Windows Vista to first do a google search for "vista drm". I don't think I'll ever upgrade to Vista because of the new digital rights management features being shoved down the users throat. XP is good enough for me."

I will not be upgrading. I can not stand DRM.

marc411: Is Linux good for games?
Reply to this comment
See all 15 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook