Project Wintendo: Install Report
N.B.: Regular readers will know/remember that I'm an Ubuntu user. In the spirit of Linux install reports, I'm offering this post, trying to compare and contrast my experiences installing Ubuntu and Windows Vista Home Basic.
I am pleased to report that "Project Wintendo"--my Windows Vista Home Basic installation--was a success. A few impresions, scribbled down during the installation process:
This was my first "real" Windows installation. All my previous Windows machines were OEM preinstalled, and I never bothered wiping & reinstalling.
The first challenge was getting the goddamn box open. Microsoft's new "packaging system"--presumably designed to thwart thieves--was aggravating to open. Sure, not as vicious as those hated clamshell packages, but still plenty annyoing.
It occurred to me as I was opening the package that the package was the physical manifestation of the type of DRM: designed to protect the producer, and succeding mostly in annoying the consumer.
Once I'd managed to get the box open, I popped the installation DVD into sputnik and booted it up. I was pleasantly surprised to be greeted with an Ubuntu-type installation splash screen. The installer didn't pick the right video mode for my graphics card right off the bat, though. The result was pretty enough, but the bad graphics mode was a bit of a letdown, given that most modern Linux distributions manage to handle this sort of thing pretty well. White text, for isntance, looked terrible--I was reminded of an Apple ][ from the '80s.
I bothered to read the whole EULA through once. For someone accustomed to free software, it's quite an eye-opener. I'm not a big fan of software with remote killswitches--nor of a document that permits Microsoft, theoretically, to go rooting about my system.
Also, I was dismayed to discover that Windows still needs to reboot a few times before the installation is complete. When I install Ubuntu, I can carry on using the LiveCD as the system is installed in the background. Definite advantage to Ubuntu there.
Post-install housekeeping included an installation of a current version of Kaspersky's security suite--a step I nearly forgot. Luckly, my Dad's Kaspersky license was good for three concurrent installations, so he let me use an unused installation.
All told, however, the installation process was pretty drama-free. No BSODs, or RSODs, no major breakage. I'm guessing most Vista nightmare stories come from people attempting to upgrade. Here, I was installing onto a fresh hard drive-- so there really wasn't anything to go wrong.
There are a few downers, of course. My logitech mouse wasn't fully supported, so I don't get multibutton support or high mouse resolutions. Fooey. (For the record, Ubuntu gives me proper multibutton support on the live CD, even if high mouse resolutions seem to be broken in the current AMD64 kernel)
As far as performance? I'm not going to lie--I'm pleasantly surprised. I'd read that Vista was a complete resource pig. Officially, Vista Home Basic's system requirements are pretty reasonable: 1 GHz processor, 512 MB RAM, 20GB hard drive, a DirectX 9-compatible graphics card. sputnik Has an AMD Athlon 3800+ (the "Manchester" core) running at 2 GHz, 2GB RAM, gobs of hard drive space, and an appropriate video card.
The installed system actually runs pretty snappily. Granted, the only thing I've really been using it for has been playing Civ4, and it's been perfectly adequate for that purpose.
Home Basic doesn't come with any of spiffy Aero user interface effects. My guess is that the real resource pig in most "premium" Vista installs is really Aero. Home Basic--without Aero--actually runs just fine. Of course, it's not as pretty as the desktop effects that I can get on Linux or OSX--but I dont' really care about how my interface looks if I see so little of it anyway. (To tell you the truth, I'd really be happy if Microsoft let me use fluxbox as a user interface, but that's not gonna happen.)
Final verdict? I installed Vista and lived. In fact, I'm pretty pleased with the result. But I'm using that partition only as a glorified games console--so I don't much care if that OS install goes kaput, since I've got all the important stuff elsewhere.
If you're running Windows XP now, and can't or won't migrate to a more sane operating system, I'd recommend that you go to XP Service Pack 3 and not bother with a full Vista upgrade.
If you're running Linux or OSX and have no particular need of Windows-specific software, there's really no compelling reason to switch.
If you built your own computer like I did, and you would like to put a Microsoft OS on it, then you'd best be served getting a retail box of Vista Home Basic. The "System Builder" packages are cheaper, but the license is bound to only one set of hardware--so if you build a new machine and wipe the old one, you don't get to use the media you bought to install the OS onto the new hardware. Given the cost of the OS, going with the OEM "system builder" pack is a false economy.
I am pleased to report that "Project Wintendo"--my Windows Vista Home Basic installation--was a success. A few impresions, scribbled down during the installation process:
This was my first "real" Windows installation. All my previous Windows machines were OEM preinstalled, and I never bothered wiping & reinstalling.
The first challenge was getting the goddamn box open. Microsoft's new "packaging system"--presumably designed to thwart thieves--was aggravating to open. Sure, not as vicious as those hated clamshell packages, but still plenty annyoing.
It occurred to me as I was opening the package that the package was the physical manifestation of the type of DRM: designed to protect the producer, and succeding mostly in annoying the consumer.
Once I'd managed to get the box open, I popped the installation DVD into sputnik and booted it up. I was pleasantly surprised to be greeted with an Ubuntu-type installation splash screen. The installer didn't pick the right video mode for my graphics card right off the bat, though. The result was pretty enough, but the bad graphics mode was a bit of a letdown, given that most modern Linux distributions manage to handle this sort of thing pretty well. White text, for isntance, looked terrible--I was reminded of an Apple ][ from the '80s.
I bothered to read the whole EULA through once. For someone accustomed to free software, it's quite an eye-opener. I'm not a big fan of software with remote killswitches--nor of a document that permits Microsoft, theoretically, to go rooting about my system.
Also, I was dismayed to discover that Windows still needs to reboot a few times before the installation is complete. When I install Ubuntu, I can carry on using the LiveCD as the system is installed in the background. Definite advantage to Ubuntu there.
Post-install housekeeping included an installation of a current version of Kaspersky's security suite--a step I nearly forgot. Luckly, my Dad's Kaspersky license was good for three concurrent installations, so he let me use an unused installation.
All told, however, the installation process was pretty drama-free. No BSODs, or RSODs, no major breakage. I'm guessing most Vista nightmare stories come from people attempting to upgrade. Here, I was installing onto a fresh hard drive-- so there really wasn't anything to go wrong.
There are a few downers, of course. My logitech mouse wasn't fully supported, so I don't get multibutton support or high mouse resolutions. Fooey. (For the record, Ubuntu gives me proper multibutton support on the live CD, even if high mouse resolutions seem to be broken in the current AMD64 kernel)
As far as performance? I'm not going to lie--I'm pleasantly surprised. I'd read that Vista was a complete resource pig. Officially, Vista Home Basic's system requirements are pretty reasonable: 1 GHz processor, 512 MB RAM, 20GB hard drive, a DirectX 9-compatible graphics card. sputnik Has an AMD Athlon 3800+ (the "Manchester" core) running at 2 GHz, 2GB RAM, gobs of hard drive space, and an appropriate video card.
The installed system actually runs pretty snappily. Granted, the only thing I've really been using it for has been playing Civ4, and it's been perfectly adequate for that purpose.
Home Basic doesn't come with any of spiffy Aero user interface effects. My guess is that the real resource pig in most "premium" Vista installs is really Aero. Home Basic--without Aero--actually runs just fine. Of course, it's not as pretty as the desktop effects that I can get on Linux or OSX--but I dont' really care about how my interface looks if I see so little of it anyway. (To tell you the truth, I'd really be happy if Microsoft let me use fluxbox as a user interface, but that's not gonna happen.)
Final verdict? I installed Vista and lived. In fact, I'm pretty pleased with the result. But I'm using that partition only as a glorified games console--so I don't much care if that OS install goes kaput, since I've got all the important stuff elsewhere.
If you're running Windows XP now, and can't or won't migrate to a more sane operating system, I'd recommend that you go to XP Service Pack 3 and not bother with a full Vista upgrade.
If you're running Linux or OSX and have no particular need of Windows-specific software, there's really no compelling reason to switch.
If you built your own computer like I did, and you would like to put a Microsoft OS on it, then you'd best be served getting a retail box of Vista Home Basic. The "System Builder" packages are cheaper, but the license is bound to only one set of hardware--so if you build a new machine and wipe the old one, you don't get to use the media you bought to install the OS onto the new hardware. Given the cost of the OS, going with the OEM "system builder" pack is a false economy.