Windows Vista 64 Bit Review

Note that this is an unformated version of the original document.  I did not feel like reviewing the whole thing, so I left it as it is.

Review of Windows Vista Ultimate 64Bit

Chapter 1 - Install Process:
     Vista has a very different approach toward the installer.  The time it takes for the installer to boot up is a fair wait.  Vista tries acting like Mac and Linux, where theres a live OS, but the Vista installer is just a fake program with a pointer.  I later realize that the OS takes up a whopping 11GB of HDD space.  Yes, I realize that HDDs these days are large, but that is no excuse to make an OS that massive compared to whats on it.  The partitioner also seems more advanced, but actually has less features than DOS installers for other versions of Windows.
     The actual install process was a pain.  It took about an hour for it to finish "Expanding files", and to make things worse, the computer has to restart 3 times for it to fully complete.  With previous versions of Windows, you only had to restart once.  The "Installing features" part of the setup was completely skipped, the installer can't even keep track of itself.  What I found very weird was how the setup was installing updates.  ...What?   How do get updates from the original copy of the DVD?  There was no internet connection available.  Thats like saying "I'm going to learn new things next year by taking the same class."
     I would say the worst part about the installation is how the MBR takes complete control over everything.  Since MS doesn't focus on other products, the Vista MBR is really only going to detect older versions of Windows and thats it, which is pretty useless to make such a powerful MBR.  If you have Mac or Linux installed prior to Vista, you won't be able to use them.  The Vista MBR is also an irremovable program on your HDD.  NTLDR (the older MBR method for Windows) no longer exists.  This is a problem because NTLDR could be easily modified and replaced to suit your needs.  The Vista MBR takes complete control over everything and there are very few programs that can modify it.

Chapter 2 - The GUI:
     The GUI is dramatically different from previous versions of Windows.  There seems to be more organization in interface navigation, but not system navigation.  Most preferences or any kind of system setting are placed in separate programs instead of 1 easy small tabbed program.  Maybe MS's idea was "By creating more applications, we can categorize all of them" which isn't a bad idea, but it was poorly executed.  Some of the sub-applications had way too many settings to chose from, when some only had about three choices.  There were too many changes to settings, making the OS feel too different.
     The effects are a definite improvement over any other Windows OS, but they aren't worth it (read chapter 4 for more info) and other than the special Aero theme, theres nothing unique.  The new look is pretty nice, but it doesn't surprise me why Mac users would feel MS ripped off their theme.  The only real difference is Vista uses a complete glass theme, Mac uses a chrome metallic and watery theme.  When it comes to loading screens, they actually made it simpler.  Every single Windows version, including 3.x had some sort of image while it loaded.  This was just a bar with "Microsoft Corporation" labeled.
     The program permission confirmations are a real pain.  Their purpose is understandable, but many programs don't need it.  MS also uses firewalls against their own programs.  Permissions are an understandable fraud security feature, but to firewall your own software?  Thats MS saying their own products are unsafe.  I've been told you can turn these features off, but since everything is designed so differently, I don't know how.  Sometimes the programs themselves weren't worth using.  You can look at some of them and think "wow how necessary is this?" and you can't get rid of them (easily).  If you have a small HDD this can be a problem, assuming that some of these small "applications" such as the widget bar probably take up a couple hundred megabytes.  One thing that MS thinks they made better was Internet Explorer 8 or Media Player 11.  It seems like all IE8 has is a different theme and tabs, still untrustworthy.  MP11 was dumbed down so much that it is difficult to navigate and terribly resource consuming.  The only customary program I noticed with positive benefits was Task Manager.

Chapter 3 - Customization and Functionality:
     Vista has a few more features but not many benefits.  Functionality is a definite flaw, especially for 64 bit.  Any 64 bit OS is limited by the programs it can handle, but Vista greatly limits you to basically anything that can be supported on a DOS based OS.  That doesn't mean the program itself has a DOS base to it.  If MS was deliberately trying to start over with a new OS and make a compatibility layer for older programs, Vista isn't such a bad idea, but they shouldn't have classified it as Windows.  Linux has better compatibility with older programs than Vista does.
     Control Panel was a real pain to me.  I've used Vista on other computers from people who have had problems.  I thought to myself "Oh, I know how to fix this" but then I try searching for something such as Network Connections and everything is different.  What was wrong with how everything was before?  If it was a different name, fine, I can deal with that.  If it had more features and removed a couple, I can deal with that too.  But to completely remove entire programs and/or place them in other locations is not something I approve of.  Control Panel has a larger list of programs yet some of them have so much junk in them that its impossible to find the specific thing you're looking for.  Designed for ease of use?  Yea right, no IT guy would ever find this convenient.  Some system applications, such as the disk defragmenter, happened to be dumbed down as well.  And, I didn't look too hard, but there had to be at least 3 different icons available in Control Panel that had to do with security.  I've spent far too much time searching how to disable non-MS startup services than I really should have.

Chapter 4 - System Resources and Performance:
     System resources have to be the worst I've ever seen, and ever will see.  If I remember correctly, Vista recommends a 2GHz P4, with 1GB of RAM, 64MB VRAM, a DX9 compatible video card only, and 11GB HDD space.  How do you jump from a 200MHz P2 with 64MB of ram, 4MB of VRAM, no DX, and 2GB to that.  Even computers that come with Vista can't handle it.  If your computer can handle it fine, you may notice that it starts up faster than XP (depending on what is in your system), but thats probably the 64 bit contributing toward that.
     Booting up was not a very fun time.  It takes much longer for windows to even start up than it should, and when it does, its still loading when it says its done.  Then, you click on your username, and you have to wait even more.  HDD usage doesn't stop for at least 3 minutes, and its even longer if you try performing other tasks.  The computer was not stable either.  Anything too processor intensive causes a crash.  Not even the mouse will move.
     Special effects are not worth using.  They are so resource demanding that what should be a cool flashy effect ends up being a choppy annoying slow defect.  For the computer I was using, they acted fine, but I wasn't running anything processor demanding.  Even moving the mouse keeps the CPU usage at 2% (16% if it was motionless).  Also, when starting Task Manager, I was shocked to find 30+ active processes.  Windows XP can operate perfectly fine and compatible on 15, Windows 98 can work on 1.  These are problems for DX10 users.  DX10 was designed for better visuals but less system stress.  Since Vista is so resource unfriendly, DX10 was rated very poorly in terms of its performance:appearance ratio, which is highly unfair.  I have heard about hacks for XP so DX10 can work on it, I would recommend anybody out there with a DX10 compatible card to look into that instead of switching to Vista for the sole purpose of DX10.

Chapter 5 - Hardware:
     Hardware support is actually almost worse than Windows 2000's.  Vista may have more drivers, but anything that wasn't designed for Vista or XP SP2 will most likely not work if its an uncommon piece of hardware.  As mentioned before, Vista is not easy on system resources.  It eats them up as if the OS itself, and nothing else, is the only reason you're using the computer.
     For the hardware rank test, I used to find it deceiving but after a later confirmation I found a glitch in it.  I tried the test on an AMD Opteron 2.4GHz dual core.  It ranked in the middle 4s.  After doing a comparison test with someone else with an Intel Celeron (Core2 based) 1.6GHz 32 bit single core who scored a 3, I felt something was seriously wrong, possibly MS being paid by Intel to uneven the ranks which I was very unhappy about because there is no comparison to the two processors.  I later tried the test on a 2.4 GHz AMD Athlon 64 single core, which ranked 4.2.  Apparently, Vista can't tell the difference between a single core and a dual core processor.

Chapter 6 - 3rd Party Applications:
     This section is somewhat obvious - if you get Vista, don't expect to use your old stuff.  Starting from scratch isn't so bad for Vista, as long as you have a good enough computer.  There isn't much left to comment on this, whatever Vista does, anything else can and will do better.  Vista does come with some nice software such as a DVD maker and a more advanced Task Manager, but after seeing the new MS Office products, I was surprised to see that people are going to need a pretty pricey PC to do their homework.  Looks like I did the real homework for you, by telling you why this is not an OS you should use.

Chapter 7 - Final Score:
[6] Set up - A big step from previous Windows installers, but a wannabe compared to other OSes.
[7] Ease of Use - Too many unnecessary changes, but some nice new interface features.
[4] Special Features - Nice new effects and programs but everything was executed and designed extremely poorly.
[5] Organization - Vista tries to be more organized, and it may be (a little bit) but it kills the original Windows feel.
[6] Customization - More customizable than previous versions of Windows but very difficult to find preferences.
[2] SW Functionality - Software makers have to code their products to work with Vista, and for 64 bit.
[3] SW Stability - Poor performance and very unstable.
[5] HW Functionality - Due to a redesigned kernel, HW should perform great.  Low rating is due to incompatibilities.
[1] HW Efficiency - Takes forever to stop loading and the most resource unfriendly OS you can get.
[6] OEM SW - Many redesigned programs but not in the best interest of average users.  Also, many programs are useless.
[1] Overall Usefulness - Anything can do what Vista does better in every way.
[4.2] - Simply terrible

0: Not an OS     1: Worst OS ever     2: Not worth using     3: Could be worse     4: Simply terrible     5: Poor
6: Conditionally bad     7: Average/Mediocre     8: Worth using*     9: Very good*     10: Best OS in existence*

*Highly recommended for average user