CNET Editors Review: Windows Vista Ultimate

There are six major editions of Windows Vista; we're reviewing four. We chose not to review Windows Vista Enterprise (available only to volume license customers) and Windows Vista Starter (available only outside the United States). Windows Vista Ultimate includes everything, and this is the edition getting the most promotion from Microsoft. It is not the edition most people will find packaged on their shiny new PCs or will end up with after an upgrade of existing hardware. See our feature comparison chart to know which edition is right for your specific needs, and check the following individual reviews for more details:

The Windows Vista DVD disc includes an ISO image of the entire code, so whether you buy the Basic edition or the Ultimate edition, the code remains the same; only the product key unlocks your specific set of features. This means users who opt for the lesser editions can always upgrade (assuming they have the proper hardware) by securing a new product key online. However, all features--even if you paid for them--are dependent on specific hardware configurations being present; if you don't have the proper graphics hardware, for example, you'll simply never see the Aero graphic effects on that old Dell computer in your basement.

Hardware requirements for Windows Vista should not be taken lightly. In a controversial move to garner positive reviews, Microsoft sent hundreds of bloggers (not including CNET) free copies of Windows Vista Ultimate; Microsoft did not send boxed copies, rather the software giant sent top-of-the-line Acer Ferrari laptops with the operating system preinstalled. So even Microsoft seems to admit that the best performance is only available on top-of-the-line machines manufactured within the last year or so.

That said, many people will still want to upgrade their current Windows XP SP2. This will keep all your current data and applications, importing them directly into the new operating system. To see which edition(s) of Windows Vista your current computer can handle, visit the CNET Vista Readiness Advisor to find specific hardware recommendations so you don't buy the wrong edition. Most people will find either Windows Vista Basic or Windows Vista Home Premium to be their best choice. While Windows Vista does make a backup of your previous operating system before installing, it is always recommended that you backup your current Windows XP system yourself, just in case.

Rather than upgrade, we recommend you perform a clean installation. With a clean installation, you keep all your current on the Windows XP drive and install only the data and applications you want to run on Windows Vista. A clean install can be accomplished by buying a new PC with Windows Vista already installed, partitioning an existing Windows XP machine to dual-boot into Windows Vista, or adding a new hard drive to an existing Windows XP machine.

Our clean installations took anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour, depending on the hardware in the system. It's pretty much an automated process, with the installer first copying the ISO image onto the new hard drive or partition then expanding that image. Once again, we experienced an uncomfortably long plateau at "Expanding: 27 percent"; as with previous builds, we waited between two and five minutes before the expansion continued. About halfway through, the installer reboots and continues the installation in Windows Vista.

During the installation, Windows Vista will load the drivers included within the installation image, but it will also download additional drivers from a much larger database at Microsoft. This assumes, however, that one has an always-on Internet connection; dial-up users may find that upon completion of the installation process some drivers are missing.

Once fully installed, Windows Vista first asks for your country or region, then time and currency, and, finally, the desired keyboard layout. Next, you'll choose a username, a user icon, and a password. Then select your desktop wallpaper and security settings: Automatic, Install Important Updates Only, or Ask Me Later. After reviewing the computer's time and date settings, there's one more message: "Please wait while Windows checks your computer's performance." Here, Microsoft grades your computer on a five-point scale, with the overall rating based on your system's lowest score (in our case, that was for the video card).

Windows Vista includes new musical tones written by veteran musican Robert Fripp. Compared to the familiar start-up tones of Windows XP, Windows Vista's are lighter, almost spritely. The sounds for User Account Control and Log Off are also perkier than those found in similar security warnings within Windows XP.

New on the Windows Vista desktop is a Welcome Center which contains links to frequently asked questions such as, "How do you configure your printer?" and "How do you connect to your Internet service?" There is also room for some sales opportunities, either with manufacturer specials or online offers from Microsoft, such as the Windows Live OneCare service. Frankly, we think it is better for you to look beyond the Windows ecosystem for e-mail, Internet browsers, and security applications.

After closing the Welcome Center, you'll notice to the far right there is a shaded sidebar populated with three example Gadgets ("widgets" to everyone else), tiny desktop applets that display content, such as RSS feeds. In one Gadget, a slide show of images from the sample photo library display; in the next, the current time; finally, there's a Gadget for subscribed RSS feeds. We downloaded and installed Firefox 2, made Firefox our default browser, and quickly set up a few RSS feed subscriptions. Guess what? The Windows Vista Gadget was unresponsive to our efforts, displaying only the default MSN feeds from Microsoft. You have to use Internet Explorer 7 or choose a Firefox-friendly Gadget instead. By clicking the + symbol atop the sidebar, you'll see a panel of available Gadgets, with a link out to the Web to find even more. The Gadgets are not fixed to the sidebar; they can be dragged across the desktop. And even the sidebar itself can be disabled to allow for a full desktop view. An icon located within the taskbar will restore the sidebar at any time.

The familiar Start menu features some cosmetic changes for Windows Vista. Aside from the distinctive rounded icon, the Start menu now includes a built-in Search function. We would have preferred to have access to Search directly from the desktop rather than digging down a level or two. The All Programs list now displays as an expandable/collapsible directory tree, something Windows should have offered years ago. The new Start menu is divided in half, with access to documents, pictures, music, games, recent items, My Computer, network, Control Panel, default programs, and Help along the right-hand side.

Also new within Start is an Instant Off button. This button caches all your open files and processes, allowing you to turn off your laptop or desktop quickly without all the "cleaning up files" messages you see in previous versions. We like the feature, but on our Acer Travelmate 8200, Instant Off and closing the lid to hibernate sometimes produced limbo states where the laptop simply wouldn't wake up again, forcing us to reboot.

In Windows Vista, files become unmoored from the traditional directory tree structure--kind of. The more ambitious plan of including a whole new file system was scrapped early on; instead, Windows Vista relies on metatags, which are keywords linked to files to make them searchable. With metatags, you can create virtual file folders based on a variety of search terms. Say you're doing a report on mountains, any file that is keyword-enabled to include "mountains" will be grouped into a virtual folder without physically dragging that file to a new location. The downside is that older files (say you upgraded your system from Windows XP or imported data from an earlier version of Windows) will have to be retroactively metataged in order to be searched. Also different is the file path displayed within Windows Explorer. Gone are the backslashes, replaced with arrows that offer drop-down menus of alternative folders. We liked this efficient feature.

Finally, there's a compatibility wizard buried deep within Windows Vista. Most Windows XP applications we loaded performed just fine. Operating under the hood, Windows Vista convinces native Windows XP applications that they're running on Windows XP. Should you need to run an older application, say from Windows 95, the compatibility wizard allows you to tweak the display resolution and emulate Windows 95 for that program. For example, we were able to run a Windows 95-optimized game demo on our Windows Vista test system.

There are too many individual features within Windows Vista Ultimate Edition to call out--seriously. However, our gut feeling is that most of the significant bells and whistles are designed for the Enterprise-level customers, not the home user. Having a large number of features should not be confused with actually providing significant value to all users across the board. We would have preferred fewer features executed extremely well rather than an uneven mix of this and that, a one-size-fits-all operating system. And we disagree with Microsoft's seemingly arbitrary division of features within individual editions.

Common to all editions of Windows Vista are ad hoc backup and recovery, instant Search, Internet Explorer 7 browser, Windows Media Player 11, Windows Mail e-mail client, Windows Calendar, Windows Photo Gallery, performance tuning and self-diagnostics, Internet protocol IPv6 and IPv4 support, Windows ReadyDrive, a maximum of 4GB RAM support on 32-bit editions (up to 128GB RAM on some 64-bit editions), Windows Sync Center for mobile devices, Windows Mobility Center for presentations on the road, User Account Control security protection, Windows Security Center, Windows Defender antispyware, Windows Firewall, Windows Meeting Space for ad hoc wireless meetings, Remote Desktop for working from home, XPS document support for PDF-like files, improved peer-to-peer networking, improved VPN support, and improved power management. Included within certain editions (and thus also included within the Ultimate edition) are Windows Media Center, Windows Tablet PC, Windows Movie Maker, Windows DVD Maker, Parental Controls, Windows SideShow for remote gadgets, domain join for Windows Small Business Server, Group Policy support, Client-side file caching, Roaming User Profiles for remote server access, Windows Fax and Scan, Windows ShadowCopy to create file backups, Windows Rights Management Services to protect documents, Windows BitLocker hard drive encryption, integrated smart card management, and various Windows Ultimate Extras to be named later. Despite many feature changes within Windows Vista, Microsoft has held onto its original marketing promise of providing users with Clear, Confident, and Connected solutions.

For Clear, Microsoft cites its new Aero graphics. Aero is part of the Windows Presentation Foundation, a subgroup of the .Net Foundation Framework, an underlying foundation for developers to build new applications. One applet is the New York Times Times Reader, the first of many products written exclusively for Windows Vista but hardly a compelling reason by itself to upgrade. Though video playback and, yes, even the tiny icons on Windows Vista are now crisp and colorful with Aero, unless you watch YouTube videos all day, you won't really need Aero, nor will you miss the tiny preview windows enabled on your desktop display. Aero is necessary to create Microsoft's new, Adobe PDF-like file format called XPS (Extensible Page System); however, any Windows XP SP2 machine can view XPS-created pages with downloads of the .Net 3 Framework Foundation and the Internet Explorer 7 browser.

For Confident, Microsoft touts new security enhancements within Windows Vista. You shouldn't encounter User Account Control (UAC) except when changing system configurations or installing new software, and even then, wouldn't you--in this age of downloadable spyware--prefer to know when an executable file is about to run? While UAC notifies you of pending system changes, it doesn't require a password. The Mac operating system does something similar but requires a password--that's security. Microsoft's more controversial method to lock down the system kernel is only available in the 64-bit editions of Windows Vista; most home users will not run these editions. Another celebrated security feature works only within Windows Mail, which most people are unlikely to use. And finally, the jury is still out on whether Internet Explorer 7 is more secure than, say, Firefox 2. Windows Vista also includes a built-in but limited two-way firewall and free Windows Defender antispyware, which ranked poor in competitive testing done by Download.com.

For Connected, Microsoft points to the new peer-to-peer possibilities, some of which are the result of its acquisition of Groove several years ago. From within Windows Explorer (there are separate Explorers within Windows Vista, one each for documents, photos, and music) you can move any file into a Public Folder and then mark the file or folder for sharing on a network. Within the Business and Ultimate editions you can further mark individual files for remote access.

Upon installation, Windows Vista rates each system's overall hardware performance, with the final score reflecting your system's lowest individual score. This is handy. For example, if you suspect that everything's running a little slow, you might find that your hard drive is returning the lowest score. Windows Vista will then recommend a faster hard drive or a drive with larger compatibility. Mostly, though, the video card will be the sore spot for most users. There's also an event log viewer to show, for example, after a specific software install your system performance started to degrade, and that uninstalling the software may restore your overall performance.

Under the hood, Microsoft has moved device drivers for DVD burners and printers out of the system kernel; Microsoft says that a majority of system crashes can be traced to improperly installed third-party device drivers. Thus Windows Vista hopes to vanquish the dreaded Blue Screen of Death common to earlier releases of Windows. Indeed, after testing several early builds, we found Windows Vista to be remarkably stable and robust.

Along with the performance monitors, Microsoft has improved the Help section considerably. There is a static FAQ, but it also links to Microsoft online and allows outreach to other users for help, either via a forum or direct PC-to-PC help. Of these, we really like a feature available on some, not all, FAQs that allows you to automate the solution by executing a script. This method doesn't teach you how to do it in the future, but it will accomplish the task at hand. For example, if you choose to update a device driver, Windows Vista will darken the desktop; highlight and open the Start menu, the Control Panel, and the Device Manager; then pause to ask you what device you want to update. It's like having a technician at your desktop, walking you though the process. There's an increasing reliance on user-generated support forums, which leads us to believe that Microsoft is shying away from its own live technical support. At press time, Microsoft's final support policy was unavailable.

Perhaps we're spoiled, but after more than five years of development, there's a definite "Is that all?" feeling about Windows Vista. Like cramming an info-dump into a book report the night before it's due, there certainly are a lot of individual features within the operating system, but the real value lies in their execution--how the user experiences (or doesn't experience) these--and like the info-dump, we came away shaking our heads, disappointed. Compared with Mac OS X 10.4, Windows Vista feels clunky and not very intuitive, almost as though it's still based on DOS (or at least the internal logic that made up DOS). Despite the addition of a system-wide, built-in Search, and various efforts to break away from staidly old directory trees, you still need to drill down one level to even access Search. And there are far too many dependencies on Microsoft products; this is not a very objective operating system, as preference is always given to Microsoft products (of which there are many), from MSN Search to RSS feeds only from Internet Explorer. But is Windows Vista a bad operating system? No. It's just a disappointment for PC users who hoped that Microsoft would deliver something truly exciting to finally leapfrog ahead of Apple. They failed. But stick around; this is just Windows Vista 1.0. Windows Vista Service Pack 1 is due out sometime before the end of the year. Windows Vista SP1 promises to fix what's known to be wrong within Windows Vista and should offer a few concrete reasons to switch.

You've had no problem with Russian hackers copying that part

Are you back to claiming that they distributed OS X itself and I defended that? You know that is false.

We're not even talking about copyright infringement or violation of the DMCA, but lack of innovation on the part of the world's largest software company.

My microsoft box still requires a reboot about every five days.

My 3 Microsoft boxes don't crash and don't require rebooting except when installing software or updates. 2 are home builts and 1 is a Dell. MY laptop also doesn't lock up or crash but it does get shut down. Just thought you would like to know :-)

you didn't think Microsoft selling to China was as bad as China getting Linux for free.

Only a twisted liberal mind such as your own would think it more beneficial to give technology away to the Chinese than sell it. I don't want any technology going to those murderous bastards, but if there is going to be some we at least need to be compensated for it. Your claim that giving something away is equal to charging for it is absurd, when you move from your house are you going to sell it, or give it away to "the community"? Not that you can give an honest answer, or even will answer of course.

Only a twisted liberal mind such as your own would think it more beneficial to give technology away to the Chinese than sell it.

No, only a rational mind would think that if it's bad to let them have it, then it's bad whether or not there's profit. If profit can at all make it more palatable in your view, then all you're saying is that it's better to sell your nation's security than to give it away.

It's like asking which is worse, the spy who does it for money or the spy who does it for ideological reasons. It doesn't matter -- he's still a spy.

And of this of course falls back on the fact that you give the open source BSD and OpenSolaris a pass on this issue. Oh, I forgot, they're okay because their licenses are business-friendly.

Your claim that giving something away is equal to charging for it is absurd, when you move from your house are you going to sell it, or give it away to "the community"? Not that you can give an honest answer, or even will answer of course.

Okay, here's your honest answer. I'll sell it. But then there's no equal to software here. Maybe you'll have a point when the Linux developers assign the Linux copyrights to the Chinese.

Now your turn. Have you figured out my answer to your #35? If not, then admit you don't know what you're talking about. If so, time to retract your statement.

Are you back to claiming that they distributed OS X itself and I defended that?

I never claimed that, you're the one that was defending the Russian hackers and claimed they had to have distributed OSX before it could be criminal which was a lie. Links above of course.

We're not even talking about copyright infringement or violation of the DMCA, but lack of innovation on the part of the world's largest software company.

Don't act like you don't know that's how the "free software" world works, you've only been defending it for years including claiming most of OSX was "free software", and who copies it at that point is immaterial, especially since you've been defending Russian hackers that illegally cracked the priprietary parts of OSX with endless lies for almost a year now as well.

only a rational mind would think that if it's bad to let them have it, then it's bad whether or not there's profit.

Which is obviously my position, not yours. My position is, don't let them have anything, but if they do get something, make them pay for it dearly. You on the other hand, are on record saying quote "I will never speak out against these giveaways" to the Chinese. Do you deny those are your exact words? I'll be happy to link that quote if you do.

Okay, here's your honest answer. I'll sell it.

So there actually IS a distinct difference between selling something versus giving it away, and I was rightful in distinguishing between the two, while your original claims there was no appreciable difference between selling something to the Chinese and giving them something for free as you support was in fact just more of your endless BS. Microsoft doesn't sign their copyrights over to the Chocomms either, so that's obviously just another one of your illogical red herrings as well.

I never claimed that

You just said above that they copied.

you're the one that was defending the Russian hackers and claimed they had to have distributed OSX before it could be criminal

Without personal financial gain on their part, which was nowhere indicated in the article, that is true according to the law. I've cited the law for you repeatedly, yet you always ignore it. The only counter you ever seem to have is to cite a case where a for-profit software company sold cracking tools.

Don't act like you don't know that's how the "free software" world works, you've only been defending it for years including claiming most of OSX was "free software"

Back up that false claim. You always put words in my mouth. I said most of the server tools are open source, and that OS X operates on a BSD base. That is not most of OS X.

You always put words in my mouth. I said most of the server tools are open source, and that OS X operates on a BSD base

You didn't say "server tools". you said "most tools", I've already linked directly to your quote several times so you're fooling no one.

that is true according to the law. I've cited the law for you repeatedly, yet you always ignore it.

No you falsely recite the law, when defending Russian hackers from possibly being criminal, then go on other threads claiming something like personal backups is somehow criminal, instead, in an attempt to excuse the actual criminals. There's no logic to anything you do, all that is obvious is that you hate Microsoft, because they stand in opposition to what you truly support - free software for the world at large, even if they have to hack it to get it.

You didn't say "server tools". you said "most tools", I've already linked directly to your quote several times so you're fooling no one.

That's still "most of the tools shipped with OS X," not most of OS X. Retract your lie.

And retract #35 if you can't counter my answer.

No you falsely recite the law

Prove that claim or retract it. Do not go off on another tangent or attack. I want you to actually prove this claim that I lied for once. You taking a proper cite out of context doesn't count. You simply disagreeing with me doesn't count. You actually need to show how I falsely recited the law. For reference, the two laws in question were the NET Act and the DMCA.

If you can't, then retract.

So there actually IS a distinct difference between selling something versus giving it away, and I was rightful in distinguishing between the two

Except that one is real property and the other is a software license. If I give away my house, I have no house. If I license my software freely, I still have my software.

while your original claims there was no appreciable difference between selling something to the Chinese and giving them something for free

For you, a more apt comparison with real estate would have been "When you decide to let Chinese spies use your house as a base of operations, will you charge them rent or let them stay for free?" Your logic says it's not quite as bad if you charged them rent.

I answered you. You answer me.

I've only pointed out your BS a dozen or more times, including direct links. Here's another one of your exact quotes defending the Russian hackers with BS (since others from Russia HAVE been criminally prosecuted for distributing the cracks and not the cracked software itself):

"Simply violating a license by not abiding by the terms (if those terms are deemed enforceable by the court) is a civil tort, not a crime, thus, no "criminals." It could be come a crime had they copied OS X itself and widely sold it"

which came from here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1724347/posts?page=119#119

Here's one of the times where this has already of course been pointed out to you, when you tried to infer that personal backups were somehow criminal, amazingly somehow instead of the Russian hackers you've been endlessly defending:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1770621/posts?page=94#94

It's all a twisted deceitful tale, since that's the only way you can halfway pull off your attempted defense of the foreign hackers that cracked OSX, yet here you are on this thread acting like someone else copying anything from OSX was somehow in the wrong.

Like I said on the other thread, according to you basically everyone BUT your foreign hacker heroes are somehow the criminals.

Except that one is real property and the other is a software license.

Yes, we've seen your claims that "intellectual property" isn't actually "property", which is why you think everyone (except Microsoft apparently) should be allowed to pilfer it. You even accused Microsoft of "lifting" BSD code remember, then when proven wrong tried to claim you "didn't believe there was a negative connotation for the word "lifted"". Yes, we've seen all your ridiculous BS before, although this looks like you're raring up to launch a bunch more LMAO.

"Simply violating a license by not abiding by the terms (if those terms are deemed enforceable by the court) is a civil tort, not a crime, thus, no "criminals." It could be come a crime had they copied OS X itself and widely sold it"

That is true. Show me in the law where it isn't.

when you tried to infer that personal backups were somehow criminal, amazingly somehow instead of the Russian hackers you've been endlessly defending:

As has been pointed out to you, that was your logic, not my view. I properly cited the law to show you the effects of your view. Again, show me where I falsely cited law.

Retract your accusation if you can't show where I falsely cited the law.

Yes, we've seen your claims that "intellectual property" isn't actually "property", which is why you think everyone (except Microsoft apparently) should be allowed to pilfer it.

Correct on the first part. It is a right that can be bought and sold like property. If you'd look at my history (and I know you do), you'll notice that I think a violation of rights is worse than theft. So incorrect on the second part.

You even accused Microsoft of "lifting" BSD code remember

Yes, I remember when you tried to twist my words out of context, when I had in fact defended Microsoft on that issue. You never retracted that instance of false witness either.

As part of your still obviously ongoing defense of the Russian hackers you claimed that they couldn't have been criminal since they didn't distribute OSX, even though I showed case history of Russians being criminally prosecuted for distributing the hacks alone. I also showed Apple's letter threatening criminal prosecution, which you called "BS". You then went to other threads inferring that personal backups were "criminal", somehow instead of your Russian hacker heroes, the only law you may have been right about was when you attempted to trot out the "180 day rule for criminal prosecution" on their behalf, since you've now been defending them for just short of a year now. But all that really shows is how low you're willing to go to defend foreign hackers who cracked OSX and distributed the crack to the internet.

As I have told you, there are two laws in effect here. The NET Act would nail them for distributing OS X, and even without financial gain. The DMCA covers this, and requires financial gain for an act to be criminal. The Russian software company that you always bring up was selling the circumvention software -- financial gain. You gave no evidence the OS X hackers did it for financial gain.

when you attempted to trot out the "180 day rule for criminal prosecution" on their behalf

Which is part of the terms of the NET Act, which you take out of context.

So back to the beginning: Show me where I falsely cited the law or retract the statement.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.