While some of Mart's statements are obviously wrong, I do agree with his point about the control panel. I find the organization in the Windows control panel to be terrible. I can't even use the default view (the one you pictured) because I can't easily get to the property page I'm looking for (why does there have to be 10 SUB-categories instead of Mac's 4?). That makes me use the classic view, which has a few too many icons for me. I have never used a mac, but after looking at the System Preferences in his screenshot, I can tell it is SO MUCH EASIER to find the simple things I would be looking for.

Windows 98 had 26 icons in the control panel, which isn't bad at all. I have 36 icons, which is getting a little too high but I can deal with it. But 55? That is just crazy. This is just one example of Windows getting more and more bloated.

I thought this version of Windows was going to be re-written from the ground up. Why then, can't simple things like the control panel be as accessible as in Macintosh's 5-year-old operating system?

I don't think Vista is all bad news though; I am excited about the new media center and Microsoft has improved IE quite a bit. I'm sure it's also a lot more secure than Windows XP, but I hope they can learn to make a more sleek, less bloated OS.

Love the new screenshots of Vista 5355!

You're attitude commends you! Hear-Hear!

Well overall I think Vista is looking pretty good. I do have some minor annoyances with the Start button though...

First is the shutdown button. I can see a lot of average users clicking on it by mistake when they just want to go to stand-by or something. I think this should remain unchanged, the XP button is good... Make it a pop-up with options!

Second, is the All programs button.. Why change that? Nobody wants to scroll down a list of programs to find what they want. I think there should be some kind of list that does take a lot more room in the screen, so it's easier to find the program you want. I don't think there's ANY problem to make it larger, since it's very likely the person stopped his/her work for a second to use the Start menu.

Charlie, you said (about Vista):

"networking in general 'just works' out of the box"

Can you confirm that this is true for the simplest networking
scenario, i.e. two PCs on a hub on the same subnet, with Windows file
sharing enabled - are both PCs able to see each other, and their
shares?

Because it annoys me like hell that this almost never works properly
on Windows. I've tried it many times, in many environments/scenarios,
and these are the problems that come up:

* Workgroup is not accessible
* Workgroup is empty (PCs can't see each other)
* PC1 can see PC2, but PC2 can't see PC1.
* PCs can see each other, but shares are not visible.

Is this *finally* fixed?

When I've asked a friend at MS about this, they said "Yeah, it sucks,
get a domain controller." This solution is not suitable for most home
users.

The only way I've had any luck is to disable the browse master service
on all PCs except one. I found out this trick while searching the
internet (it seems all the PCs keep arguing about who is in charge and
forcing master browser elections, which show up in the event log).

And I'm not talking about complicated setups - this setup quite often
doesn't work:

PC1 <----> hub <----> PC2

No other PCs, networks, hubs, switches, etc, just two PCs plugged into
the same hub with no strangeness (the two PCs can ping each other,
etc).

I'd think it was just me, but just about every tech person I've talked to
about this problem say it bugs the hell out of them, too. (Before you
suggest the home networking wizard, I don't think I've ever got that
to work even once.)

Does Vista finally fix this?

Why did you purposely make those screenshots so small? If you are trying to hide the build tag its not working.

Evaluation copy. Build 5355.vbl_media_ehome.060130-2100

Please post some large 1024 by 768 screenies for our personal enjoyment.

I've been using the Feb CTP of Vista (build 5308) for a while, and have several complaints related to features discussed in your post.

- In XP, to bring up a Command window, you click Start - Run, then type "cmd". In Vista, you type "cmd" in the box labeled "Start Search". Intuitive - NOT! In general, though, I like the new Start menu better than the one on XP.

- Internet Explorer: where is the "Stop" button? If I do a web search, click on one of the results, and it takes a long time, is there any way to tell IE to stop waiting so I can return to my search results? I use the Stop button a lot. To me a browser without a Stop button is useless.

- Windows Explorer: I can't figure out how the Search box works. Where is it searching: the whole computer, the set of files and directories currently displayed in the window, the file(s) and/or directories that are selected, or what? And what is it searching for? Files with names matching the string typed in the box? Files containing the string that I typed? Either? I'd much rather have the search in the XP version of Windows Explorer. It's dog slow, but at least I know what it's doing.

- Also in Windows Explorer, what happened to the Explore option, with the a tree view of folders on the left side of the pane? Is it just temporarily missing in 5308 or is it gone for good? Or is there some hidden way to turn it on? The XP version of Explorer is a fairly good file system browser. The version in build 5308 is significantly worse.

- There's a new dialog that's displayed when you're copying some files to a directory that already contains files with the same names. This dialog is a real horror. Instead of asking whether you'd like to overwrite existing file "foo.txt" written on April 1 with "foo.txt" written on April 3, it asks you which version you want to keep. And it doesn't give you any useful clues as to which is the file that you're trying to replace, or which is the newer one. If the directories have the same name, it will display two radio buttons with exactly the same label. How am I supposed to make that choice?

I presume that most of these problems will be fixed before Vista is released. I realize that I'm using a pre-release version, and I should expect a few rough edges.

I think Vista has done a lot to improve the Windows UI, but when you look at things like the Explorer... It just isn't better. Mac OS has a really clean and simple look and organization. You can tell that a designer with an eye for usability and simplicity looked over the core interface bits. In contrast, even on Vista the UI is a garbled mess. I just wish Microsoft could hire 1 to 3 guys to dictate the look, feel, and organization of Windows. They might not get it all right, but at least it'd be consistent, instead of having a button for every PM at Microsoft.

On an unrelated not, bring back the old Media Center look! The brighter blue and iconic green selection is a hit with everyone I know, and the new darker, murkier look is a real put-off. If you need help updating the look get some of the Xbox 360 guys in the room. ;-)

You know what... have been beta testing Windows Vista (just like lot of you out there). It IS more complex to use than Windows XP. A lot of the tasks that I could accompalish with a couple of key strokes in XP takes a lot more key strokes and mouse clicks in Vista. Too many things are being changed and not all of them the correct way. It's easy to lose sight over the usability aspect (I know that MS does a lot of usability testing) when you have Aero/Glass/Aurora etc. to look at, but the fact remains that Vista in it's present form is more difficult to use than XP.

Mart may have been wrong in chosing some of the examples, (and I have never used OS X), but having used Windows since Win95 through XP, I don't like the way Vista is turning out to be. I always critize Linux for it's complexity and UI inconsistancy when compared to even Win95, but Vista is not doing a great job either. The colors don't match (black and green and grey and what not???), the non-aero UI looks older than Win95 UI. I mean, come on! Can't the non-aero UI at least match the XP UI in looks?

You can make all the improvements you want (presentation foundation, communication foundation, new audio & n/w stack etc.), but the end user (a vast majority of them anyway) only interact with the GUI. Make it clean, make it simple.

(And if you are planning to surprise all with a new UI style for Vista (like Luna for XP), I would be the happiest guy on the planet).

I've used Vista (latest) and IE 7 (latest) and Office 2007 now for a while testing it, trying mightely to convince myself I could like it and htat it would make me more productive.

And after 2 weeks of trying hard, I have to say I can't. Not because of bugs or slowness because of beta software. But because of the interface.

Almost everything I do in the OS on a regular basis takes longer. Almost everything I do in Word takes longer. And then there is the mess of the IE 7 toolbar, addressbar crap. It's just insane having the stop button on the other side of the address bar away from the bloody forward and back buttons. The 3 most used buttons and you have to move all the way across the screen to get to them. And then of course there is the mindnumbing iconography. If it is a stop button, then put a bloddy stop sign on the bloody button! An X does not mean stop! It might mean close, it might even mean delete. But it certainly doesn't mean STOP.

Vista's start menu takes longer to find things quickly. Yes, if I'm an idiot that doesnt' clean their start menu, then this might be marginally faster searching for an item instead of just going directly to it because you know exactly where it is. But for power users, it's a disaster.

Then there is Windows Explorer. I've been using this thing for 2 weeks and I still can't find my folder view. Yes, again morons that have no organizational skills might be better served with a search box, but for those of us that are organized, you've completely failed us.

Tip MS: Just cause Google makes a lot of money doesn't mean that searching for everything is a good idea. Search is only needed on the internet because everything isn't carefully categorized and logically laid out. A computer hard drive doesn't have those problems, especially for people that have a clue what they're doing. For the rest of the people, they might search within their "my pictures" folder or something, but they go to their my pictures folder first. They don't search first and hope that it is found on their entire hard drive.

Either way, you've filed the power user completely again.

Office 2007. With the exception of the context toolbars when you right click on something, you've completely failed the power user. No matter how comfortable I get with the layout, you've taken the worst attributes of those stupid personallized menus and done it again. Worse, lots of things take 2 clicks instead of the one it was before. Worse, the manu menu isn't discoverable, unless you decide to see what MS might have hidden when you click that big shinny thing in the top left. Worse, the entire thing isn't discoverable in any way with the exception of occasionally toolpanels or whatever you want to call them poping up that sort of have something to do with what I want to do. To this day, I still can't find the options window and I've been looking for 2 weeks!

For morons that have never used a computer, Vista may be a little more consistant with the web. For everyone else it's just a pain in the ass.

For morons that have never used a word processor, Office 2007 might be easier to use for the first 2 weeks of their existance. For everyone else it's just a pain in the ass.

For everyone, moron or not, IE's interface is just crap that some graphics person designed and didn't bother to talk to anyone about usability.

Yes, MS has officially jumped the shark.

I can't stand it when people whine about UI stuff that they can control with little effort.

I love Vista and build is getting better.

I think that there will a greater learning curve for those that have not been keeping up with Windows. Mart's review is very biased. I would agree that Windows may have gotten more complex, if you want to see things done the way you've always been used to doing them. A user can costumize either operating system to get the experience that they want.

I feel Vista is doing the box step. A few steps forward, a few steps to the side and a few back. The last CTP I installed had some great usability features yet others just baffled me.

- The default tree pane view thing in Explorer on the left side. I don't even have a good name for what it is but boy do I hate it. It's too much information, too much going on.

- Transparency is pretty but it makes it visually cluttered. Honestly, what's the point.

- A lot of the new icons are great... yet a lot of the new icons also are really bad, like the default folder icon. On it's side and the tab on top it looks like it's about to fall over. Most people don't even think of tabbed folders on their side like that.

It just doesn't feel like anyone looked at the bigger picture of usability. Vista would have been a great time to step back and say, "Let's create as simple an interface as possible that allows people to do 80% of the most common tasks in an utterly intuitive way." Instead it just feels like they hot-rodded XP. Pulled the engine, added some ground effects, added some nitrous, got bigger tires... but still the same car, now just more flashy and sometimes obnoxious.

On one end of the simplicity scale there is the TV dinner: simple, easy, bland, goop mixing into goop, not all that appealing but it serves it's purpose and almost anyone can "get it" though it's oddly difficult to eat without utensils. On the other end is great sushi: amazing presentation using the simplest of items creating a fulfilling and dynamic taste experience while seeming utterly easy to create and it's even simpler to eat... pick it up, pop it in your mouth. Presentation is balanced with taste which is balanced with usability. Right now Vista is a lot more TV dinner and a lot less sushi.

I feel there is some really amazing tech under the hood in Vista, really innovative stuff. It's just the UI doesn't match. I am just talking about the desktop experience by the way, the MCE interface is still the best DVR interface out there.

I'm excited about some of the features in Vista, but I just find it to be an ugly-looking operating system.

I don't like glass. I don't like the "sea green" hue that a lot of the UI has taken on. I don't like how cluttered every single window appears to be.

In short, it's contradictory to the marketing materials behind the "vista" name. It'll probably help me find things that I want to find faster, but I probably won't enjoy the journey. I will see more clearly, but I'll hate the view. The fog softening the view probably made for a more attractive overall scene :)

It's just incredibly ugly. This screenshot shows it at its worse, IMO:
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/showcase/vista_5308_066.jpg

I just don't understand how this has passed visual inspection. Are the politics at Microsoft really so bad that the people who've undoubtedly challenged this ugly diversion have been silenced? Or, are they trying to appeal to the obscure visual design tastes of the Linux community? I really find the latter hard to believe, as the market is so small.

I'm still looking forward to Vista, though :) Windows and Media Player both badly need an update.

Kenny, the Vista control panel kicks ass for one major reason - the search box in the corner. Once you've started using that, you'll never go back. Its always the first thing I hit now-a-days when I go to the control panel. Joining a domain? type "domain" in the search box, select the "join computer to domain" entry that pops up. Adding an admin? Type "user" into the search box and select the "Add domain user to administrators group" entry that pops up. I could go on and on. I don't use the search in explorer that much, but in the control panel - it rocks!

Despite my earlier comment, I agree with your defence of Vista against that "trainwreck" article. The author of the "trainwreck" article clearly set out to make Vista look bad, I think. Default settings were modified to make Vista look worse, etc. But, it's difficult to deny that it doesn't take much to make Windows look pretty ugly :)

Charlie wrote:

Mart makes it seem really easy to get to this property page -- but it's not. It's there if an advanced user or technical support needs this level of resources. Here are all the hoops Mart had to use to finally arrive at the Network Settings properties...

1) Click the Start button on the Windows Vista desktop.
2) Select Control Panel.
3) Select 'View network status and tasks' to launch the Network Center > Status page.
4) Select 'View status' in the Network details section.
5) The Local Area Connection Status Property Page appears.
6) Click the Properties button in the Activity section.
7) Click the Continue button in the User Account Control dialog.
8) The Local Area Connection Properties page appears.


And then you get to actually modify your network properties, which at least one more window and quite possibly makes the total number of steps 12-15 or more. And if it is like XP and you go from DHCP to static ( or vice versa, I can't remember) you have to reboot.

This is an improvement????

In my not to humble opinion, now is the time for a built in expert mode, at least for Vista that's going to be supported by admins. Something for the Powertools folks to chew on ?


Scott

Maybe I should mention here, I can't actually run Vista (it wouldn't install on my thinkpad when I tried it) ... so...

ALL of my screenshots (and almost all I know about Vista) are from Paul Thurott's Win Super Site!

I blame Paul for setting up his desktop all weird!

WOW hey Charlie thanks for giving that post a way wider distribution than I expected!!! I got some awesome comments on it - It's THE WORST BLOG POST EVAR OMG and so on... Anyhoo - I want to link back to your post as it has some way better screenshots that help tell the other side of the story...

And just so the nasty-comment-writers understand, my post is just my impressions and opinions about which OS I'd rather use and why. It's not a magazine article or a manifesto of the crazy bleeding heart liberal mac user who is trying to force the world to love rainbows and unicorns... so take it easy... nobody is going to take away your precious Device Manager...

One "rule" Windows has consistently broken, and actually gets worse in Vista is Fitt's Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27_law

...simply put, Fitt's law is that the time required to move from a starting position to some target is a function of the distance to move and the size of the target. In computer-human interaction, this could be described as moving the mouse pointer from the middle of the page to the back button (a very common task).

I downloaded IE7, and was frustrated: some graphic designer had decided that IE7 needed specialized, custom navigation buttons. They are small and round, and difficult to hit. In terms of area, they're an order of magnitude smaller than what is in IE6. In Vista, the close and minimize buttons in the upper right corner are much smaller and rectangular in shape: this is an error! Frequently used buttons should be easily clickable, and the "back" button is by far the most frequently used button when browsing.

Skinning should be used to make software more intuitive and easy to use, at least in practice. In reality, it rarely ends up being that way. Skinning is done for eye-candy, with fleeting notions of useability often brushed aside. I know this first hand, having been a developer on several projects where marketing types fail to understand the significance of radically altering the UI.

Macs aren't much better, with one really notable exception: the launch bar. The launch bar skews Fitt's law, because as you get closer to the object you want to click on, it gets physically larger--which is, quite frankly, awesome.

Hey All--> I have to admit, I'm not a 'good' windows user. IMHO, a good windows user, from MS's point of view is one who buys the 'latest greatest' version as soon as it comes out. I've been dragged kicking and screaming to every new OS since Win 3.1. I get a new OS when I need a new computer, but only because it comes with it. If I could buy clean systems and install my old OS I would probably do it, but you don't get a cheaper system that way so what's the point. I'll actually buy a new OS if there's some functionality I require or really want. USB and CDRW bumped me up to Win98 and I would gladly have stayed there if I hadn't purchased new boxes with XP. I don't think they will be able to get me to upgrade to Vista until at least SP2, unless it can make my dinner or do the dishes.

Anyhow, back to the point. Most of the complainers will be standing in line at midnight to get Vista when it comes out, and MS will never learn to make a useful AND elegant product. Let's face it, all OS's are lousy in one way or another. No product can satisfy all users. I still think the reason we don't have an intuitive, elegant OS is the fact that people rush out to buy whatever they produce, why should they bother to make decent stuff when we're eager to shell out our money on crap?

BTW, many of the complaints I've read can be easily dealt with. If you don't like 4000 icons in control panel make your own folder, it's not hard. You have to be a real noob, or worse, to use an OS straight out of the box. It's no wonder we haven't gotten anywhere in 10 years if the beta testors are complaining about things that can be fixed in less time than it takes to sneeze.

We all should have realized that things were going downhill when we heard the Stones singing in the advertising blitz that accompanied Win95. It can't have been a total coincedence that the next line in the song is "you make a grown man cry."

The bottom line is that MS will continue to design their OS for the stupidest users until we convince them that we aren't stupid. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Mart --> Don't get me wrong, but your OS sucks, too. At least you will be able to run Windows on your next Mac so you can get your own screenshots. I just hope that now that we can all use whatever OS we choose on almost every computer, we will see improvements in every OS. Unfortunately, the opposite is more likely to be true.

Well, if you really want to know, if IE7 in Vista is going to be the same as the Beta i installed on on XP pro, the only word applicable to the (standard parts inalterable) interface starts with C and ends on P. Navigation buttons e.g. way to spread out forward/backward/refresh and in the fartest corners forcing major mouse distances to be traversed.....where is widgets or extension concept for for instance mouse gestures. THEN, seemining MS has gone to a feed annotion completely none standard and again an attempt to monopolise and push out existing extensions like rss/xml...Vista/IE offering some none functional...scuze me no but the hell is mainpage.aspx???? my RSS reader sure as hell does not understand it in Firefox or Opera where the free choice world likes to browse....all these colour screams, glass whatnot ladiddada....you want this to be accepted in the business cumunity....wake up....were still running 20000+ installs of W2K because there is absolutely nothing additive in XP and nothing visible in Vista eiter.

Windows Vista looks great, and thanks for providing the screenshots. I don't like Apple users who bag on Vista or other Windows applications, yet their arguments are biased.

some fish just found here!

http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/sitemap.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index55.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index31.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index30.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index119.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index74.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index54.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index1.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index77.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index79.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index29.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index59.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index11.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index12.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index15.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index18.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index19.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index20.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index63.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index47.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index48.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index33.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index65.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index27.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index67.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index61.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index66.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index96.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index101.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index104.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index76.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index56.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index105.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index108.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index122.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index26.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index46.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index13.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index42.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index25.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index43.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index64.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index125.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index16.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index97.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index99.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index102.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index87.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index21.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index8.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index98.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index51.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index100.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index103.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index45.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index22.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index83.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index6.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index52.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index120.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index123.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index126.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index35.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index92.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index131.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index57.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index121.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index124.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index127.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index71.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index106.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index10.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index86.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index109.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index133.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index14.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index17.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index82.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index89.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index107.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index44.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index84.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index110.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index93.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index39.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index114.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index62.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index91.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index23.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index132.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index130.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index38.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index9.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index128.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index69.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index111.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index113.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index115.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index134.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index32.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index37.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index70.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index117.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index68.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index28.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index129.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index72.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index94.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index40.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index118.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index60.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index90.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index81.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index53.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index78.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index80.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index112.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index75.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index58.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index7.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index85.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index88.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index116.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index95.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index36.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index50.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index41.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index2.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index34.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index135.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index3.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index4.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index5.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index24.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index73.html
http://freewebsitehosting.net/websites/clark/index49.html

I started with CPM, then DOS, Windows, 95, 98, 2000, XP and am now playing with the final Beta of Vista. Every step of the way has made computing easier and more friendly. No, nothing is perfect, but are these guys that continually talk down MS working for Apple or are they from Arkansas? (Joke)
Yes, Vista is becoming more Mac-ish. But, after all, Mac started the graphical interface. And MS has smartly been improving it since the beginning [of Windows]. Yes, like anything, if you try hard enough, you can make problems for yourself and there will be legacy driver issues (though not many). But, especially for a new user, it is simpler to learn. Us old timers will need to look a little to find some things, but, really, not too much. It has my vote!! And I can't wait for the final release.

My findings, have at least 1Gb RAM. I think RAM is more important than CPU speed. 1.5 to 2 GB is better. For full functionality, a 128 mb or better video card is required but it runs fine with basic cards or on-board solutions. Download the beta and try it. You will really like it!

And, no, I don't work for Microsoft. But I do thank Bill G. for helping bring computer hardware and software to where they are today and at costs we can afford.