SAN FRANCISCO -- Part of my job will require supporting users running Microsoft's newest operating system, Windows Vista. So I had to install it on my computer. My "computer" is actually a virtual machine running under Parallels Desktop for Mac on a 2.16 GHz 20" iMac Core 2 Duo. I'd love to have the Aero Glass interface (and, indeed, the 128 MB video card could handle it), but Windows doesn't recognize the special Parallels drivers, so it won't do anything like that.

Here's the low down: Windows Vista isn't as terrible as I thought it would be.

Security

Windows Vista actually enforces "administrator" rights like Unix does. This is good. What's bad, though, is that it does so in three different, inconsistent ways. Vista may ask you to "allow" a program (or installer) to run much like Windows XP SP2 requires you to allow certain programs to run. This prevents programs from installing stealthily, which was the major problem with Windows XP. Vista may ask you if you wish to "continue" with the execution of a program that it determines could be potentially risky. Finally, Vista may ask you to type in your full-blown administrator name and password. It may ask for all of these or a combination of them.

It's good that Vista has security in mind, but it's bad that Microsoft implemented security in a half-assed way. On Mac OS, if you want to install anything that's not a drag-and-drop into your own user folder, you must -- always! -- supply an administrator's name and password. No questions, no deviations. If you are about to install something on Mac OS that modifies the operating system, you have to be authenticated.

It's not enough that Vista requires you to click a button; certainly a smart program could create a macro that clicks the button or at least emulates, to the operating system, clicking a button. It's tremendously more difficult to find out your name and password. This is good for multiple users, as well; anyone who isn't an administrator could potentially install stuff on your computer just by clicking a button. They don't need to know a password.

Multiple users

Whereas Windows 9x had no multi-user support to speak of (except for multi-user logins which just saved some settings and Start Menu configurations), Windows XP did have support for multiple users. Windows Vista continues this trend, which is good. But, again, the benchmark for multiple-user support is Mac OS, where not only are one user's settings totally separate from another user's settings, but users can't even see each other's folders. In fact, not even an administrator can see other user's folders. Only the root user (which is disabled by default but can be enabled by any administrator) can see other user's folders. In Windows Vista, anyone can see anyone else's stuff. Why is this still going on?

Functionality

Vista took a nose-dive in the user interface department. It's more difficult in Vista to find what you're looking for than it was in Windows XP. For example, how do I find out my IP address? A user of moderate knowledge could go to a command line and type "ipconfig." But Windows Vista wants to be graphically based. Okay, let's bite. The first thing you would do is go to the Start Menu and then to Network. But Network doesn't display your network settings; it displays the stuff on your network. You'll need to click Network and Sharing Center in the menu bar of the Network window to get to the settings. The next window looks familiar; it's almost like the Network Settings control panel from Windows XP, but it provides a little more information. For example, if you're connected to a domain, it will tell you what the domain is. That's great! But it doesn't tell you what your IP address is. For that, you'll need to "View Status" of your local area connection. But even that doesn't tell you your IP address like it did in Windows XP. You must click "Details" and then you can figure out your IP address.

The Lowdown

Some people -- like major marketing companies -- would like you to believe that Windows Vista is a next-generation, super-duper operating system. It's not. It's merely the next iteration after Windows XP. Microsoft spent the last six years slowly stripping away features and, in the same way that they rewrote Windows 2000 and called it Windows XP, they rewrote Windows 2003 and called it Windows Vista. There's no reason to upgrade to Vista, especially if you have an older machine. The sexy Aero Glass interface will only work on machines with a real video card, so if you purchased a bargain-basement machine from Dell with onboard Intel video, you're out of luck. What you'll be using will look and act pretty much like Windows XP. And when the "Home Premium" version of Vista (which is the only "home" version that doesn't suck) costs $300, why bother?