XP Beta 2 vs. Vista Beta 2

[Guest]

I never tried XP RC1 or read about testers opinions with XP Beta 2... I would
like to get an idea of how things were a couple months before October 26,
2001; and now.

From old XP RC1 and Beta 2 reviews I've read, I am of the understanding that
XP Beta 2 was mildly stable, with a few bugs; while XP RC1 was very stable
and a true release candidate.

I ask that all testers that tested XP Beta 2 and RC1, share your thoughts on
any similarities between then and now; in regards to stability, possible
bsod's, network stack errors (or otherwise network issues), etc.

I am very close to waiting for Windows 'Fiji', and keeping XP till then.
After reading on Paul Thurrot's Winfo site, MS is flat-out refusing to listen
to any of the advice for a delay and intends to ship come rain or shine on
November/January, I question their respect for their customers and testers.

So, if past testers would, please share what it was like a couple months be
October 26, 2001. Thank you.

 

[Gordon Wheeler]

I am very close to waiting for Windows 'Fiji', and keeping XP till then.
After reading on Paul Thurrot's Winfo site, MS is flat-out refusing to
listen
to any of the advice for a delay and intends to ship come rain or shine on
November/January, I question their respect for their customers and
testers.

I've got no experience of XP testing, but I'd question what will change to
make the release of Fuji any better than Vista, If MS don't listen now why
should things change ;-)

That being said I'm not rushing to Vista even though the improvements on
tablet PCs make it very desireable.

Gordon

 

[Bob Kilgore]

I never tried XP RC1 or read about testers opinions with XP Beta 2... I
would
like to get an idea of how things were a couple months before October 26,
2001; and now.

From old XP RC1 and Beta 2 reviews I've read, I am of the understanding
that
XP Beta 2 was mildly stable, with a few bugs; while XP RC1 was very stable
and a true release candidate.

I ask that all testers that tested XP Beta 2 and RC1, share your thoughts
on
any similarities between then and now; in regards to stability, possible
bsod's, network stack errors (or otherwise network issues), etc.

I am very close to waiting for Windows 'Fiji', and keeping XP till then.
After reading on Paul Thurrot's Winfo site, MS is flat-out refusing to
listen
to any of the advice for a delay and intends to ship come rain or shine on
November/January, I question their respect for their customers and
testers.

So, if past testers would, please share what it was like a couple months
be
October 26, 2001. Thank you.

I was deeply involved with beta testing of XP for my company, 30,000 nodes
on NT4 with about 600 servers. At the beta2 time the OS was stable for most
hardware builds. There were blue screens of death, but about 80% less than
with NT4. There was far less configuring for different hardware builds, it
seemed to be more tolerant of change than NT4. We put several nodes on the
main network on-line with beta2 and "tested in the real world". When we
changed the test to RC1 we were pleased with the improvements and all
testing was very positive. We were in the process of building a new
configuration for our laptop systems and incorporating wireless networking
and 'hot desks', the end result was the first issue of XP in-house. The
final release of XP was, as far as we could tell, the same as the RC1 build.
There was some talk of an RC2 build but I don't remember ever seeing one.




I then retired and started testing XP64 on my personal system. It runs very
well and all the basic hardware drivers were sorted out. However I have a
Canon scanner and a Hauppauge Win-TV USB adaptor, and a Microsoft mouse.
These will not work with XP64 and one states they will not supply 64 bit
drivers and the other 2 say sometime but we don't know when. As there is no
basic 64 bit software this is not a big issue.




Vista turns out to be an entirely different animal. Since I am retired and
only testing for fun, I had to wait for the public build as I now am not in
contact with my last employer. I put it on a machine that should be capable
of running it and the sound, and visual representation of DVD's skips during
playback. I have tried everything and a note to this group that was not
answered. I will compose a note to MS and hope for a response, otherwise I
will wait for the RC1 release and see if the problem is still there. At this
point I am in agreement with the camp that says delay and fix please. On the
other hand it would be fun to see a release, and two weeks later a multi
megabit service pack 1.




Bob

 

[Jeff]

Hi,
You question msft's respect for their customer's????
Ahh; they respect them alright; the HUGE corporations that have bought their
software assurance. They are promising their software assurance customer's
that they will meet their contractual obligations;to them.
In other words; Vista is shipping;ready or not.
Oh and BTW; don't be too concerned about filing bugs;as;#1;they are already
past the builds that most of us are using.
Not to mention the fact;that it's pretty much a pr smokescreen anyhow.
Jeff

 

[Mark Gillespie]

I never tried XP RC1 or read about testers opinions with XP Beta 2... I
would
like to get an idea of how things were a couple months before October 26,
2001; and now.

From old XP RC1 and Beta 2 reviews I've read, I am of the understanding
that
XP Beta 2 was mildly stable, with a few bugs; while XP RC1 was very
stable
and a true release candidate.

I ask that all testers that tested XP Beta 2 and RC1, share your
thoughts on
any similarities between then and now; in regards to stability, possible
bsod's, network stack errors (or otherwise network issues), etc.

Whilst it's too early to tell how good/bad Vista RC1 is, as we don't have
it yet. I did try XP Beta 2, and I have to say, Vista Beta 2 is FAR
behind, nowhere near as together. I would really love to say the right
thing, but I (as most people) think that RC1 will be more like Beta 3.....


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0634-0, 08/21/2006
Tested on: 8/22/2006 7:16:00 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

 

[Peter M]

Actually the fair comparison would be NT5 (win2000) beta2 and Vista beta 2.
XP was just NT5 with some add-ons and colourful GUI. In that respect I'd
say Vista is ahead since there was very little hardware support and software
was no great shakes either and blue screens were a way of life yet the final
release turned out okay (sp1 fixed a lot). I won't say Vista will be as
smooth on the final release as XP was or even W2K but hopefully it won't be
awful either.