Performance

The current performance of Windows Vista is fairly laughable. From a subjective point of view it feels sluggish with a lot of random slow downs. Definately not the crisp, snappy response I've come to expect from Windows XP. With less than a year before they plan on launching, I would like to see a bit more progress, but they'll likely get it working well before then. Let's just say that Vista will have the highest requirements ever for playing Solitaire.

Now for the totally unfair 3D benchmark of a pre-beta operating system. Please keep in mind that these results have nothing to do with the performance of the final version or even of more complete betas, but what the heck, you know you're curious.



Not actually as bad a hit as I expected, 1728 in Vista vs. 2016 in XP. Ok, so that is a horrible 3D Mark number, but I'm no hardcore PC gamer and my graphics card reflects that. Seems that most of the performance problems I'm having with Windows Vista are related to Areo.


Compatibility

While some may gripe (hey, at least a couple of you thought my first Vista article was an Apple ad), Microsoft has provided an amazing amount of backwards compatibility in the past. While I haven't tried to fire up WordStar for a while, I have happily played old DOS and Windows 3.1 games in Windows XP (What? They make great laptop fare).

So far I've installed a number of applications that I commonly use into Vista (Photoshop, Firefox, Trillian, DivX, 3D Mark 2005, plus a few random tools). All installed without a major hitch. This is by no means a good test, but it's promising. On the gaming front it doesn't look too pretty at the moment; Age of Empires II choked and Betrayal at Kondor failed. Even the so-called compatibility modes didn't help. I did manage to get Warcraft III to run, albeit with a lot of monitor flashing as it loaded.


Strange and wonderful oddities

As some of the more perceptive of you may have noticed, the current build of Vista does something strange with window titles. You know, the text at the top of every window since the dawn of time? Well, now they appear optional. Sometimes they are there, sometimes they are not. Trying to find the rhythm and perhaps a reason for this, I opened lots of windows and lots of applications. It seems Windows Explorer has lost the classic titles in favor of the new navigation bar. Other program windows get the classic titles, albeit a bit more snazzy. The new bar is a hybrid of the title bar, the folders pane, and the address bar.


Cool address bar/folder pane/title bar replacement 


Outlook

All is not peaches and cream in the land of Redmond. This build is rough and far from complete. There are some long nights in the Windows team's future if they hope to get Vista out in a year. If they pull it off by Christmas 2006 it should help move a few extra systems with eye candy alone, though.

Bottom line? If they iron out most of the bugs, give me a bit more flexibility in the interface than the current build does and provide decent backwards compatibility I'll probably be good for a couple copies, but I won't be waiting with bated breath. Beyond the eye candy and some nicer tools, there isn't a hugely compelling reason for Vista at the moment.