Jump to content

Thoughts On Vista


Swad
 Share

72 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

That graphics system is very, very nice. But it's dead slow. I seriously doubt that $700 average PC is going to be able to handle transparency on every window and almost constant animation on that crappy Intel video chip.

 

The problem is twofold: Vista's requirements and current home PCs. Most home users buy these Web/office PCs with Intel mainboards that have sloow integrated video. These chips simply can't handle the hefty graphics system. All this essentially boils down to the fact that this is simply going to be Windows XP with slate topped onto it. Not only that, with the UXTheme hack/WindowBlinds, you can already get slate.

 

Sure, you might get some parental controls and a few features, but who actually uses the parental controls AFTER buying games for their kids? It's a waste of money.

 

Security will be tightened, but there are going to be bugs in the new security features, and we'll be stuck in the same virus catch-up game as before. Blah-blah-blah. :)

 

Most of the stuff that's going to be in Vista will be cut out and turned into backported XP-compatible downloads that are buggy and crash-prone and will probably be pulled in weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your link is broken :)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista...re_requirements

No complete details of Vista's hardware requirements have yet been revealed by Microsoft beyond general recommendations and guidelines.

 

The guidelines for Beta 1 give this basic guide [3]:

 

    * 512 megabytes or more of RAM

    * a dedicated graphics card with DirectX 9.0 support

    * a modern Intel Pentium- or AMD Athlon-based PC

 

Microsoft expanded on these basic requirements at its TechEd 2005 conference on Australia's Gold Coast in August 2005. Microsoft strategist Nigel Page said, for Aero Glass users would need a video card with 256MB or more of RAM, for the 64-bit version of Vista they would need 2GB of DDR3 RAM, and for increased performance all round users will need a hard drive with the native command queuing (NCQ) feature of Serial ATA 2. [4] [5]

 

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't really think this is the release for Joe Bob's Intel Extreme Graphics. :(

 

Oh, and by the way, by "hastily ported," I meant that OSx86 hasn't exactly been given the attention that PPC OSX has been given in testing and development. It was a backup plan (or more Steve Jobs foresight, but I'm not willing to believe that mush).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's extremely early to be saying which will be better at all. Vista is completely new and has to deal with being able to run all the old applications (as well as backporting all the new features) while OS X has the advantage of changing anything and everything, regardless if it makes older things incompatible with the newer version or vice versa.

 

Vista, unfortunately, is a second class citizen simply because developers said they won't develop for it if XP can't do everything it can (well, mostly everything). Retarded and unfair, but what can you do?

 

Windows REALLY needs to make a complete transition where everything for the old Windows is run in a compatibility layer and therefore allows for a new, more proper OS, not that XP and Vista aren't good. Sadly I get less crashes in XP then I do in OS X (programs crash at least once a week on my Mac Mini, I can't remember the last time a program crashed in XP), but Microsoft is stuck in a rock and a hard place as they can either redo everything and potentially lose their monopoly or they can stick to their current method and constantly have to cut down all the features they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YEP... the main trouble here is that, exactly, as Microsoft is trying to hold credibility via compatibility, meanwhile getting in a tangled web of porting-backporting game that can't end well.

I think XP could be great just with the accelerated graphics (as said before) but that will never happen.

If you see the link I corrected (that is WinSupersite) you'll see that the requirements are not as terrible as they should...

 

Just a thought

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I never said MS was copying Apple. I'm saying OSX can match most of the features in Vista. I also know about the "double-life" thing. That doesn't change the fact that OSx86 was never completely tested for public use and it is still crash-prone ("other issues").

 

I showed a picture of Windows Vista in Wikipedia to my mom, and the first thing she said was:

 

Wow! That looks exactly like a Macintosh!

 

I kinda think that the graphics of Aero are mimicking Aqua.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, for all of you people who believe that the Sidebar is gone, it's not. You can download a file that allows you to bring the Sidebar back into the Vista betas. Also, blahsucks, those security features are optional. You can disable them, which I did, because they get annoying as all hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I am an avid Vista fan but I have to admit that Vista has lots of stuff that are very very similar.

 

If you look at Explorer in Vista and compare it to a Finder window in OS X they could be twins!

 

The whole desktop search thing is copying but it is just the same as if you installed MSN Desktop Search on your XP machine, and I am pretty sure they copied that idea from all the other 1000 desktop search applications out there.

 

There are tons more and a lot of them are taken just to keep up to pace (such as hardware accelorated windows and desktop search)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I wonder is whether Vista will be less painful to clean-up after the first install. Since XP was released, I must have done 30+ installs of it for various reasons, and getting it to be annoyance-free is a pain :

Installing security fixes as fast as possible and pray that you won't get cracked before, disabling useless services, configuring the explorer, removing various {censored} like messenger, enabling stuff that should be on by default like antialiasing, cleaning up the system tray, installing software, disabling the {censored} that most software gives you (they all seem to have a thing for adding themselves 24/7 on you tray, adding a "My ___" folder in your My documents, laying junk on your desktop), patching the theming engine to use a better visual style than Luna, cleaning up the start menu that they had the clever idea to generate by overlaying two directories...

 

Will Vista change any of this ? I don't have the feeling it will be any different, but I hope I'll be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah... here we go again, vista copied from osx. what you'll don't know is that apple copies most of their stuff from other people too. the dock, tabbed browsing, dashboard...

apple is just really good at reinventing things. they're not the first so don't give them credit for that. they're just really good at what they do. tiger is amazing no doubt. but it will be overshadowed by vista when it comes out. trust me!!! macs are way too expensive for the consumer market. that's why they have less than 5% share in the computer market. there are more linux users than there are mac's. nevertheless, i like working on macs. and it has the "cool" factor. and i'd love to own one one day. maybe when the full switch to intel is done i'll probably get one. but for now, windows rules!! and i'll stick to my osx86.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24-bit bootscreens!!! Wheee!!!

 

Damn, I feel sorry for the people with integrated graphics that want to use Vista.

 

Sidebar = cool. Not exactly functional, but if you remove the taskbar and have really high res, then it's not too bad. I didn't see why they were scrapping the sidebar, anyway. Is it really so hard to come up with what is basically a set of windows with restricted area? Is Sidebar really efficient or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
I installed Vista when it was first launched on torrent. LOL. This version of OSX is 1000x more stable than Vista it's so pathetic. So Vista / WinXP SP3 Plus? Not on my computers..

 

didn't you notice it was a beta? the first actually...

 

think before you post, and use your brain before reviewing.

let's wait for at least a RC before we jump to conclusions?

people are so eeger to mark microsoft for the sake of being "funny". why not give them a chance to make a better os? none of us are suppose to see these beta's (illegal idiots :D), so wait for the final for crying out loud. have you no inside in how the process of programming works with beta's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's no doubt that the best OS will be one that combines all the goodies the software realm can achieve. Be it widgets, Accelerated UI, Desktop Search, Metadata Queries, Virtual Folders, Virtualisation, Stability, Eye Candy, performance in lesser equipment, etc.

 

So I really don't give a damn about who's copying who anymore: May the best win!!!

(And shove the «cool» factor up yer arse!!) :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

didn't you notice it was a beta? the first actually...

 

think before you post, and use your brain before reviewing.

let's wait for at least a RC before we jump to conclusions?

people are so eeger to mark microsoft for the sake of being "funny". why not give them a chance to make a better os? none of us are suppose to see these beta's (illegal idiots :P), so wait for the final for crying out loud. have you no inside in how the process of programming works with beta's?

 

You M$ heads crack me up! Here you are surrounded by THOUSANDS of users of a totally unreleased OS - not beta, not even out of the developer's hands - who are all, for the most part telling you how great Mac OS X on x86 is. Your response to criticism of Vista - just wait until it's a Release Cnadidate? Too Weird! By that measure, OS X will probably be teleporting people across the globe when it's an RC - considering how stable, usable, and solid it is - TODAY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've used OS X on my Dell box for several months now. It NEVER crashes - NEVER. It runs circles around any M$ OS I've ever used (from DOS 3.1 to Server 2003) in design, expandability, and the ability to use free and famililar Open Source tools (I love Azureas, and it runs like a naked ape on this box). I pared a 160Gb drive down from 140Gb to Xp and 20Gb to OS X to today's config of 30Gb for Xp and 130Gb for Mac OS X. A couple more days backing up my wife's photos and there will be NO M$ product on this box. And trust this - I am greatly looking forward to that day...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... A couple more days backing up my wife's photos and there will be NO M$ product on this box. And trust this - I am greatly looking forward to that day...

 

no flaming criticism here aimed at you. :) BUT, you have the possibility of dual booting now, why throw that away?

 

there are many programs written for windows os that have no equals in osX. ugly, vicious little programs with fleas that get the job done. :hysterical:

 

anyways something to think about. i've had windows installed on 17gigs for a long long time. you wouldn't even notice it was there until you needed it for something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no flaming criticism here aimed at you. :) BUT, you have the possibility of dual booting now, why throw that away?

 

there are many programs written for windows os that have no equals in osX. ugly, vicious little programs with fleas that get the job done. :hysterical:

 

anyways something to think about. i've had windows installed on 17gigs for a long long time. you wouldn't even notice it was there until you needed it for something.

 

No flaming seen here ;-)

 

I know what you mean, but I've not even booted into Xp for over a month. I think the last time was when I put together the dvd for 1099 and maxxuss put out a ppf patch. At the time, I didn't have ppf patcher for the mac - know I do, and it works just fine. I don't know, maybe I'll cut that partition down some more and keep it, but it is REALLY tempting to just be done with it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Call me crazy, but Vista to me felt like XP with a couple of icon changes.

 

 

And I know this sounds really dumb...but the icons of the files being sideways instead of up and down really bothers me, I dont know why, and how the back and forward buttons are set above the file, edit, view buttons etc. that really got on my nerves.

 

 

All im saying is that for how many years its been in development...you think it would be a little more innovative

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me crazy, but Vista to me felt like XP with a couple of icon changes.

And I know this sounds really dumb...but the icons of the files being sideways instead of up and down really bothers me, I dont know why, and how the back and forward buttons are set above the file, edit, view buttons etc. that really got on my nerves.

All im saying is that for how many years its been in development...you think it would be a little more innovative

I completely agree, I got it going and it really was like using a good looking version of Windows... I just hope that all the new innovations under the hood make it more than just a nice skin..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...