Has anyone here tried Vista Beta1?

[Curlydave]

Has anyone here tried Windows Vista Beta1? I'm going to have a Windows partition for the next forseable future due to games, and am thinking about giving this a try.

PS: Does anyone know how I can resize partitions so i can triple-boot?

[blueturtl]

PS: Does anyone know how I can resize partitions so i can triple-boot?

If you are running Ubuntu Breezy at least, just run gparted. If you use something older, you have to apt-get it first. Simple yet powerfull tool I'd say. Of course you should still backup just in case as playing with partitions is never the wisest thing to do afterwards.

What games would there be in the foreseeable future that wouldn't run on Windows XP? Most games still run under Windows 98 SE.

[Lord Illidan]

Has anyone here tried Windows Vista Beta1? I'm going to have a Windows partition for the next forseable future due to games, and am thinking about giving this a try.

PS: Does anyone know how I can resize partitions so i can triple-boot?

IMHO, I don't think you will find a lot of people who have tried Vista on this particular forum.. something about the OS we are using, I think.

Resizing partitions? Use QTParted or Gparted. Have a look at this : http://gparted.sourceforge.net/livecd.php

I'd be wary about using Vista Beta...what if it formats your Linux partition without asking you?

[earobinson]

I find a fair amount of people dual boot, I would run it at home if i did not get to test it at work all ready.

I like new things, will never leave linux but will try everything i can get my hands on.

[Kerberos]

I'd be wary about using Vista Beta...what if it formats your Linux partition without asking you?
If you have a concrete example of Vista deleting partitions without asking post it but otherwise stop spouting crap. If you want to make fun of Vista have a go at that clock thing they have but dont just start making stuff up.

thx.

:)

[earobinson]

If you have a concrete example of Vista deleting partitions without asking post it but otherwise stop spouting crap. If you want to make fun of Vista have a go at that clock thing they have but dont just start making stuff up.

thx.

:)
Lord Illidan never said it will, he said "what if" Its understandable, I would be wary of any beta deleating my partitions.

EDIT: For the right lord

[Kerberos]

Lord hunter never said it will, he said "what if" Its understandable, I would be wary of any beta deleating my partitions.
He basically said 'I wouldn't use Vista because of [unsubstantiated fact I just made up]'. I could tell people not to use Linux because it corrupts NTFS partitions and although thats more true than what Lord Illidan said everyone here would go nuts if I said it.

As I said theres plenty to criticise in Vista without having to resort to inventing bugs.

[earobinson]

Im not going to debate it with you, but there is nothing wrong with saying im not going to test a beta because it could mess up what I have.

[Squalor]

So you want to try it? Hope you have at least 4GB RAM and a 512MB graphics card! :mrgreen:

[Lord Illidan]

I'd be wary about using Vista Beta...what if it formats your Linux partition without asking you?

What I mean is: It is a Beta, we don't know the code behind it, and it might not neccessarily reformat your Linux partition because it is Linux, but just because it doesn't recognise it in the installation.
I am not making fun of it.
Thanks, earobinson, but I am not Lord Hunter ;)

[earobinson]

lol sorry about that Lord Illidan, and XP will hide ubuntu from you by overwriting the mbr, Its a good assumption that vista will do at least the same.

We tested it on a clean computer! And its pretty but im not all that impresed give the linux any day!

[Kerberos]

So you want to try it? Hope you have at least 4GB RAM and a 512MB graphics card! :mrgreen:
Come on, if your making stuff up you could at least be a little bit more creative? Personally I wont use Vista because it will virus up my toaster!

[bored2k]

Come on, if your making stuff up you could at least be a little bit more creative? Personally I wont use Vista because it will virus up my toaster!
Well, you shouldn't make stuff up either. Where have you read about virus outbreaks on Vista? Squalor's point was probably that while the more advanced linux distributions are, the faster they become (ubuntu, fedora, etc) while Windows is most of the time the exact opposite. If you've read any interviews Bill Gates has done, you'd know that machines which are now considered pretty high end to be the standard by the time Vista ships.

[Lord Illidan]

Well, you shouldn't make stuff up either. Where have you read about virus outbreaks on Vista? Squalor's point was probably that while the more advanced linux distributions are, the faster they become (ubuntu, fedora, etc) while Windows is most of the time the exact opposite. If you've read any interviews Bill Gates has done, you'd know that machines which are now considered pretty high end to be the standard by the time Vista ships.

Hmm..
Virus outbreaks on Vista? Not yet. Until it is released, anyway. ;)

Linux distros getting faster? Ubuntu was pretty slow, until I tweaked it. For some time, it was a hell of a lot slower than XP, which is saying something.

Now, about 4 GB RAM, I think that is a rumour with no basis other than Vista's pretty desktop. I used transparency on Linux, and while it is good for grabbing attention, it is practically useless for productivity.

Now, machines which are considered pretty high end today are STILL not the standard, and will not be the standard even after Vista ships. Are pentium 4s and AMD 64 bit standard? I don't think so, at least from where I am. I know people who use pentium 3s and 2s, and have no intention of upgrading. They use Windows 98 happily, with the odd reformat every 3 months (they don't want to use Linux)..

ATM, Vista hasn't really shown anything that groundbreaking apart from a pretty interface, which Mac OSX already has.. WinFS has been ditched, lots of other features are to be released as patches, and you know what? The release date is being pushed back year after year.

[xequence]

Well, you shouldn't make stuff up either. Where have you read about virus outbreaks on Vista? Squalor's point was probably that while the more advanced linux distributions are, the faster they become (ubuntu, fedora, etc) while Windows is most of the time the exact opposite. If you've read any interviews Bill Gates has done, you'd know that machines which are now considered pretty high end to be the standard by the time Vista ships.

Wow. For once I agree with you, bored.

Didnt bill say the specs needed would be 512MB RAM?

[Kerberos]

Well, you shouldn't make stuff up either. Where have you read about virus outbreaks on Vista? Squalor's point was probably that while the more advanced linux distributions are, the faster they become (ubuntu, fedora, etc) while Windows is most of the time the exact opposite. If you've read any interviews Bill Gates has done, you'd know that machines which are now considered pretty high end to be the standard by the time Vista ships.
I am not quite sure what you mean. In a speed comparison Ubuntu takes about 5m30s to boot on my x64 3400+/1gb machine, while Windows does it in ~30 seconds. I'd say for desktop performance Ubuntu is slightly slower than XP but that could just be me - I dont have any numbers to back it up.

So far in this thread it's been claimed Vista needs 4gb of RAM and a 512mb gfx card (I dont see any concievable reason it would possibly need a 512mb gfx card) as well as accusations that it deletes without question any non-Windows partition (which I am 99.9% sure is false).

I'd just like comments posted to be actually true, rather than anti Windows propaganda as it makes discussion meaningless. Thats all.

[Lord Illidan]

I am not quite sure what you mean. In a speed comparison Ubuntu takes about 5m30s to boot on my x64 3400+/1gb machine, while Windows does it in ~30 seconds. I'd say for desktop performance Ubuntu is slightly slower than XP but that could just be me - I dont have any numbers to back it up.

So far in this thread it's been claimed Vista needs 4gb of RAM and a 512mb gfx card (I dont see any concievable reason it would possibly need a 512mb gfx card) as well as accusations that it deletes without question any non-Windows partition (which I am 99.9% sure is false).

I'd just like comments posted to be actually true, rather than anti Windows propaganda as it makes discussion meaningless. Thats all.

Ok, so rather than deleting without question any non-Windows partition, it will overwrite the MBR without question? Is that fine for you?
About the 512 mb gfx card, I have to agree with you, kerberos. Even Doom 3 and Quake 4 don't need that much video card memory...hard to see why Vista should need more than 128 mb.

Kubuntu on my part is slightly faster than XP in the desktop... but a bit slower in booting.

[Kerberos]

Ok, so rather than deleting without question any non-Windows partition, it will overwrite the MBR without question? Is that fine for you?
The MBR issue has been present in Windows since Win 98 and although it is a proper pain in the **** its in a different category entirely from just wiping a whole partition without question.
I'd be wary about using Vista Beta...what if it formats your Linux partition without asking you?
Its not true, he just made it up, end of story.

According to actual, released, information it looks like Vista requires 256mb RAM with a 64mb gfx card (as opposed to 4gb/512mb) and the requirement on the graphics card is down to the mac-Quartz-like rendering engine which is just an obvious advance of technology and certainly isn't a feature to be derided.

Not that I believe it'll run particularly well on 256mb of ram (I'd suggest 512mb-1gb) but making stuff up to make Vista look bad doesn't help anybody and, as I said, makes the whole discussion meaningless.

[Curlydave]

Ok, I have another question: Is there a way to split a DVD ISO onto multiple CDs? The ISO is a DVD one, and is about 1100MB. Does anyone know if it's possible to split this onto 2 CDs, and if so, how? Thanks!

[Bandit]

Come on, if your making stuff up you could at least be a little bit more creative? Personally I wont use Vista because it will virus up my toaster!
He isn't making up anything. He is just point out that VISTA IS A RESOURCE HOG.. And from everyone I know that has used it has stated that it is very resource intensive.
You need to kinda read through things and quite bitting at everyone.

Personally I wouldn't install VISTA on my computer because I don't like spyware on my computer. AND OMG I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP!!!

Cheers,
Bandit

[Lord Illidan]

Its not true, he just made it up, end of story.
Ok, ok, I was making it up. End of argument.

Ok, I have another question: Is there a way to split a DVD ISO onto multiple CDs? The ISO is a DVD one, and is about 1100MB. Does anyone know if it's possible to split this onto 2 CDs, and if so, how? Thanks!

Perhaps you will have more luck asking the msdn forums.

[Kerberos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD

Though, personally, I'd go with a true and honest discussion based on evidence, facts and reality rather than an idealogical crusade against it based on politically motivated grounds that have nothing to do with the actual code involved, but hey, thats just me!

[greenpenguin]

From what I last read about Vista, it requires min 512 Mb RAM, reccomended 1Gb. Could be wrong here though...

[Lord Illidan]

From what I last read about Vista, it requires min 512 Mb RAM, reccomended 1Gb. Could be wrong here though...

Of RAM as in main memory, not RAM as in graphics card RAM.
No surprise there. With their graphical finery, you will need that amount, definitely.

[WildTangent]

I have it, and I've tried it, and I'm not particularily impressed so far. So it has a new theme engine? Big whoop. It doesn't make your work any easier, so what's the point.

-Wild

[somuchfortheafter]

it looks very nice however under virtual pc it would not keep a constant video resolution due to a video driver and it would die upon blinking at it... over all not impressed at all but yet we wait.

[Elvish Legion]

I tried it, got annoyed and uninstalled.

I will say this, IF I had no choice but to use a windows xp or vista....I'd use vista....but over all I'd use linux

[Kerberos]

I have it, and I've tried it, and I'm not particularily impressed so far. So it has a new theme engine? Big whoop. It doesn't make your work any easier, so what's the point.

-Wild
But Vista is Cool! :) (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/images/press/2005/07-22lh_lg.jpg)

To stay in business they need to trot out a new version every few years. If MS announced 'I think we've got Windows right, just tweaks from now on' they'd be out of business in a few years - you can only sell something to someone once (OEM aside).

They need to fix security, they need to fix spyware, they need to sort out rampant installers and bring control of programs back to the user rather than the author. Nobody really cares about anything else they add - eyecandy is nice but isn't make or break and certainly doesn't justify the upgrade and WinFS, even if they did include it, I seriously doubt 99.9% of users would ever know or notice the change from NTFS.

Same goes for office and everything else, they struggle to come up with new and exciting features to justify a new release, but they have to to stay in business. Its on this basis that I believe Open Source will eventually win - It'll catch up and everything MS does to sell Vista + the next gen really won't matter to users, who are happy as long as it works as they expect and doesn't throw up too many unnecessary barriers.

I do think however that Open Source has to gain a much larger amount of self criticism and to identify what people* really need - at the moment its far to elitist and is of the opinion that people should come to it, rather than it should come to people - the first reply on this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=122001) highlights what I mean and the inflexible 'learn it or fk off' attitude. As long as things like this are considered unimportant Linux isn't really going to achieve mass market appeal.

But Linux now is massively improved from just a couple of years ago, and its only a matter of time before it surpasses the point of providing what people actually need, rather than what MS tells them they need (and it isn't WinFS).

* When I say people I mean people who want to use a computer, rather than learn a computer. A HOWTO on CLI install is not a solution.

[RaptorRaider]

Would anyone who managed to get Vista perfectly on a system with XP and Ubuntu please have a quick look at my old thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=108209)?

[professor_chaos]

Re: Has anyone here tried Vista Beta1?????

No, and never will install it on any machine I ever own!! And no, I'm not making that up.

I have far better performance, security and stability in linux than I ever had in windows.

The hardware requirements from what I've read http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/09/07/vista_hardware_reqs/ indicate that vista is a hog. Theres really no benifit in the grand scheme of things to completely offset hardware advancements by software demands, when the additional demands are caused by bells and whistles that really do nothing but distract the user from actually using the computer.

[poofyhairguy]

Geez. No one has tried it that wants to comment?

Ok. I will.

I tried it at the very end of last year. By default it was not that cool, but overall I like the Vista theme more than Luna. I was amazed at how slow it made my Pentium 4 2.6 GHZ 512mb RAM 128mb 6600GT computer. The worst culprit was IE 7- at one point IE was lighter than Firefox but this next release changes that.

The eye candy enabled by default is so-so. The 3D progressbars are cool but a little too flashy for my tastes- I prefer the Cairo animated ones.

I hacked the registry and enabled all the Aeroglass stuff. Then things go really slow, but I think partially because the Nvidia drivers were not ready. The live windows on alt-tab and on taskbar mouseovers are cool but not amazing like I thought. I liked the new 3D task switching- that will take a while to do correctly in Linux.

The best part eye candy-wise was the minimize trick. It was a combination of OSX's Genie Effect and Xcompmgr's fade effect. Applications fade and shrank onto the taskbar. I enjoy things such as this and it was amazingly fast compared to the rest of the eye candy. That is good stuff.

The worst part about Vista is they took away the cascading programs menu. Now it opens inside itself in a way that was so off I found it unusable. Its good that they are giving you better search options because that might be the only sane way to start some programs. I can't describe how bad it is. If Vista costs tons of money in training (or if normal users do not like it) it will be because of this...

Overall it seemed it needed a lot of work. Yet the progress done so far DID have some interesting concepts. Its worth trying out, but its a long way away from being a primary OS for many people.

And unless IE 7 starts all over, that might end up being the worst program MS ever releases. I was all excited about it because I thought it meant tabs when I go over to a friends house or use the computers up at school....but IE 6 is way better. My dad recently installed the XP IE7 on his computer and it really messed it up. The entire OS got really slow. The poor quality of it blows me mind- obviously the talented IE team that made the revolutionary 4 and 5 series of the browsers are long gone....

Vista IS going to eat a pretty good bit of resources and unless you have some semi-heavy graphics hardware (aka not Intel Intergrated junk) you won't get Aero effects turned on (or if they are on they won't run well) and you miss out on the best parts of Vista. The side effect of my experiance with Vista is I tell all my friends and family to not buy any computers this year (ESPECIALLY laptops) because the average computer isn't going to run Vista like most people would want.....

[TechSonic]

Using my nifty MSDN account. 'click, send Vista beta 2 R-5' There I'll have the disc in a few days. Then I'll let you all know what the horse pucky is about.

[WildTangent]

Using my nifty MSDN account. 'click, send Vista beta 2 R-5' There I'll have the disc in a few days. Then I'll let you all know what the horse pucky is about.
Make an .iso of it, send it my way :P I'm curious to see what progress they made since beta 1, which I got off bittorrent.

-Wild

[angkor]

Ubuntu takes about 5m30s to boot on my x64 3400+/1gb machine, while Windows does it in ~30 seconds.

[...]

I'd just like comments posted to be actually true, rather than anti Windows propaganda as it makes discussion meaningless. Thats all.

Is that true? 5m30s?? Or are you just spreading FUD? ;)

My Ubuntu boots up in about 1m10 (Hoary was faster) on way slower hardware.

Still not as fast as windows but not nearly 5.5 minutes.....

[Kerberos]

Is that true? 5m30s?? Or are you just spreading FUD? ;)
5m04s to boot to the login screen, then a further 25s to load x. It wouldn't be so bad but you need to boot it up, then reboot it (total 11 minutes) for it to see the wireless network adapter. Considering hibernate doesn't work either its a bit annoying.

[Squalor]

Well, you shouldn't make stuff up either. Where have you read about virus outbreaks on Vista? Squalor's point was probably that while the more advanced linux distributions are, the faster they become (ubuntu, fedora, etc) while Windows is most of the time the exact opposite. If you've read any interviews Bill Gates has done, you'd know that machines which are now considered pretty high end to be the standard by the time Vista ships.

Exactly my point. But sure, it's not a problem for Microsoft: the hardware companies will make sure Vista runs smooth on their computers, and therefore, around 1GB RAM and a 256MB graphics card will become standard by 2007.

[Mr_J_]

I've been wondering.
If I remember correctly, and i think i do, XP had some trully low requirements which really just made the entire OS lag.

So if they keep that up, and I think they have, then Vistas minimum is higher than what they say.

Anyone have it from experience or rumour what Vistas real requirements are?
I mean what you expect it to be with the System running without tweaks, with anti-viral, firewall, anti-malwares all on full gas.

Just so I know...

I mean the entire ball of wax. Full on everything.
After all. Those are what the real requirements are.

[midwinter]

I've been wondering.
If I remember correctly, and i think i do, XP had some trully low requirements which really just made the entire OS lag.

So if they keep that up, and I think they have, then Vistas minimum is higher than what they say.

Anyone have it from experience or rumour what Vistas real requirements are?
I mean what you expect it to be with the System running without tweaks, with anti-viral, firewall, anti-malwares all on full gas.

Just so I know...

I mean the entire ball of wax. Full on everything.
After all. Those are what the real requirements are.

Well I read this just recently..

http://www.apcstart.com/teched/pivot/entry.php?id=6

"Nigel Page is a strategist with Microsoft Australia. He told APC today that Vista would work best on a video card with more than 256MB RAM, 2GB of DDR3 memory and a S-ATA 2 hard drive"

...........

[jonathanm]

id just like to say that my breeay loads much slower than my windows ones

[Mr_J_]

Has DDR3 even been invented yet?
The requirements are ridiculous.

Most people I know won't even consider spending that much money anytime soon.
Vista is suposed to come out 2007 isn't it?

They might see people st

[Mr_J_]

Has DDR3 even been invented yet?
The requirements are ridiculous.

Most people I know won't even consider spending that much money anytime soon.
Vista is suposed to come out 2007 isn't it?

They might see people start using the full capabilities in 2009 or something like that.

By then I think linux will have XGL and composite managers, ReiserFS and initNG. All stable I mean.

My computer is in no way Vista ready... That's a bit sad.

[Lord Illidan]

Quote from Wiki article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR3

////
Supposedly, Intel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel) has preliminarily announced that they expect to be able to offer support for it near the end of 2007. AMD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD)'s roadmap (http://www.amdcompare.com/techoutlook) indicates their own adoption of DDR3 to come in 2008. ////


So DDR 3 is coming out after Vista, then? Or is Vista coming near the end of 2007?
Also, is Microsoft expecting people to change their computers in a year? Probably, yes. I think this is all a scheme to get people to upgrade their computer hardware, with their OS, because of the number of people who didn't upgrade with XP.

Anyway... I don't care about Vista, at least not yet.

[angkor]

5m04s to boot to the login screen, then a further 25s to load x. It wouldn't be so bad but you need to boot it up, then reboot it (total 11 minutes) for it to see the wireless network adapter. Considering hibernate doesn't work either its a bit annoying.

Yup, that's pretty annoying indeed.

What takes so long during boot? Detecting the wireless? Can't you just press Ctrl-C.

Be grateful you're not experiencing this on a laptop. ;)

[trriangle]

Hi,

WinFS structure is an interesting one indeed. I suppose you give a glance to http://www.ntfs.com/ info source, there's much useful data on this filesystem there if you wish to find it out.

[Christmas]

Has anyone here tried Windows Vista Beta1?

Neah

[awakatanka]

The MBR issue has been present in Windows since Win 98 and although it is a proper pain in the **** its in a different category entirely from just wiping a whole partition without question.

Its not true, he just made it up, end of story.


Hehe kubuntu livecd and expresso installer did remove my partition without asking and thats a beta to. So he better not use a kubuntu livecd beta then ;)

Also in beta vista may be a memory hog and slow but it can improve and act faster when its live. Only when its live then you truely can say what you like our dislike.