Many and many articles have been written on the last Microsoft operating system, some claim that is a good operating system with significant enhancements, some other instead scream about the issues and problems they had to face with Vista. To my pint of view everything depends on the context in which the OS is evaluated.
I’ve had experience in both “main” environments, that’s to say office and home and I have a different evaluation for both of them.
In the office I simply could not use it because of its incompatibility with some tools that are used in the company so I had to discard it after two days and reinstall Windows XP.
For home usage instead I really appreciated it, I had it installed on a HP laptop and, except the first week in which it was really slow, it started satisfying me: rapid resume from standby, fast application opening and many other cool and useful things.
That’s it, everything depends on the context!
The UAC feature is certainly what causes all of the disruptions and errors in applications; you can’t configure apps to run as services,while installing something you have to right click and choose “run as administrator” and so on…but this feature is useful, it prevents unwanted applications to escalate privileges.
Considering the UAC in the “office”, to my point of view, this is somewhay unuseful because IT admins already know how to avoid unwanted behavior; at “home” instead the UAC feature is a good thing because prevents virii spread for those users who are not really confident with computing.
So I wonder, why didn’t Microsoft simply decide to make two different things like an “office” version and a “home” version? I know that Business edition is this way but it’s simply an OS with some added features and not an OS deigned mainly for corporate usage.
My 2 cents…