"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good" is a famous quote of Bill Gates that has direct relevance to this question: Is Microsoft Vista simply a visually stunning product with little substance? The question, obviously, could be asked about any of Vista's predecessors, and providing criteria for what's "visually stunning" would only be a tedious journey into a realm of subjective opinions. In acknowledgment of this truth, the following review will look beyond the artistic, visual merits of Vista and examine the facts pertaining to the product's actual performance. In this analysis, we will be able to gauge whether or not Vista is a piece of software whose appearance as a radical improvement over past Microsoft operating systems is merely a façade.
Let us get this straight: Microsoft Vista is revolutionary for its functionality and for its features. However, just because Vista is revolutionary does not mean it is deserving of qualitative proclamations such as "better." In fact, it is a popular logical misconception to assume that change equals improvement. After all, does a change in a political establishment necessarily lead to a better government? The answer is commonsensical. But to its credit, Microsoft Vista is revolutionary for several reasons. First, developers have to go back years to discover such a novel programming model with which to work. Secondly, Vista boasts new features over past Microsoft operating systems such as the ability to search for files or applications from anywhere, and a Windows sidebar that allows you to select various Windows gadgets such as a clock and currency exchange.
Another change worth noting is Vista's strong level of security. Vista includes Parental Controls that set specific rules for the user and restricts access to certain applications without user approval; it also provides two different levels of firewall, one standard (which XP has) and one with advanced features. Thus, possible vulnerabilities that existed in other Microsoft operating systems are addressed in Vista.
Whether the above constitutes "better" is a matter of opinion. And if they are considered as improvements, then they are balanced with certain notorious disadvantages, which some may find to be no less egregious than any security flaw in XP. First, upon introduction, Vista was not fully compatible with all hardware and software. Certain games or software did not run at all. And some that did were excruciatingly slow. In contrast to Vista, Windows XP was fully compatible with all hardware and software. Moreover, Vista has higher hardware requirements; its licensing is very severe, and its application support can be dreadful, as some applications crash on a whim. Finding a practical solution to unexpected crashes in common applications is as difficult as learning how they crashed in the first place.
In summary, Vista presents a change from prior Microsoft operating systems. It contrasts with past systems in how it functions. Yet, there are disadvantages that exist, which balance out any supposed "improvements" in Vista. Ultimately, the customer must decide if the changes are sufficient reasons to upgrade over previous operating systems.
James Sawyer is a freelance writer who writes on a variety of subjects.
