“Security is the lens through which I always view products like Windows Vista, and in that view it looks good. But there is a bigger picture with Vista for the industry: It’s really, really different from previous versions. At many levels it requires a different approach.” The Inq took a look at Vista RTM, and they find: “Suffice to say we’re impressed. Vista has come a significantly long way since the RC2 build. It’s polished, speedy, and looks good on the eye.”
“Speedy and looks good to the eye”? Don’t you mean speedy OR looking good to the eye?
The final release of Vista may be significantly better or faster than the previous builds but there is no way anyone can put speedy and good looking in the same sentence. Aero is a pain to run and we already know it.
But what could anyone expect from an article that starts saying that from a security view Vista looks good? There is a HUGE difference between “looking better” and “looking good”.
Vista final is better than the last builds, agreed. Much much better.
Vista is speedy AND secure AND pleasing to the eye? Well hold on…
Edited 2006-11-13 22:45
How secure it is remains to be seen, I’d give them the benefit of the doubt.
I’ll agree Aero is slow as shit, I wish they’d let me use Classic with the DWM. That would rock.
I think Vista is prettier than OSX. Aqua is bland and too even more fisher price than Luna.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9UPhwmjJ-Y
You should find out what OSX borrowed from Windows. Like the Open/save window that ended up in Finder. lol
http://www.nd.edu/~jvanderk/sysone/
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16484&comment_id=181989
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OYD9t8Dv5Q&mode=related&search=
Watch it till the end and from the comments on that page
You really missed my point, i never said vista didn’t rip alot of the ideas from osX, or that i don’t like osX, i’m just saying that most of these ideas were not apple’s to begin with, ripping from third party programs kind of takes away your right to complain about a competitor “stealing” your ideas.
Apple copied so much from 9x and XP like alt-tab
what I dont get it why people make such a f–king big deal out of someone copying something from somewhere else.
If it gets intergrated well, and its a useful feature, then WHAT does it matter?
granted, a company like MS or Apple can rip the features from some 3rd party tool and put the 3rd party out of business. That kinda sucks, but that just means that 3rd party should come up with new ideas that people want…
its marketing ..it makes all those who love macs feel good about their systems and who else is there to compare themselves with?
How many “features” in mac os x are just a copy and paste from the unix world/open source world? ..i dont expect them to say any of that because “its not what their people want to see/hear’
I’m happy that Apple uses open source / takes ideas, and makes them /better/. Microsoft are forever reinventing the wheel (Zune without PFS, XPS ! PDF, Windows Media Photo ! Jpeg)
what I dont get it why people make such a f–king big deal out of someone copying something from somewhere else.
Honestly, I have no idea either. I mean, why do I give a shit who copied off who? I’m sure they all copied off each other in some ways, and it’s all irrevalent to me. When I look at an OS, all I want to know is, what can I run on it?? That’s all I care about. That’s all I’ll probably ever care about. Because afterall, an OS is only as good as the applications made for it.
I’m not here trying to say that one particular OS is better than another. I’m saying that if you’re going to debate which one is better, why not debate where it really matters? And discussing which OS was the first to implement xyz feature just doesn’t f**king matter. Why do we care? Firefox (and its various extensions) has been ripping off features from Opera for years, yet most people don’t seem to mind.
Edited 2006-11-14 06:45
“I’m saying that if you’re going to debate which one is better, why not debate where it really matters? ”
Could you enlighten us as to where could we do this?
“Because afterall, an OS is only as good as the applications made for it.”
WRONG! An OS is as good as the level to which it fullfills its intended usage. If you are talking about a home desktop which should be easy to use and able to run a lot of different programs and games then windows might be the right fit (with all its benefits and weaknesses). If you are talking about a supercomputer, a number crunching “beast” then forget windows. And that is just looking at two of the possible uses of an OS out of many more.
This is a site where the main subject of discussion is OS, and NOT home desktop.
If you are talking about a supercomputer, a number crunching “beast” then forget windows.
Since Windows for Supercomputers hasn’t been out too long, that isn’t fair.
There are 2 Windows Supercomputers in the Top 500. If you look at the data, one of them did very well. It ranked higher per cpu count than most Linux supercomputers using the same type of chips.
Why do you say it is not fair??
We are looking at regular uses of an OS. Supercomputers are not that new, it is MS decision not to indulge in that area. Not because it was closed to MS, but because MS knew that in order to compete it would have to invest a lot and gain back very little. Don’t forget that as far as servers go MS is still the new kid in the block, we all remember that the roots of windows are in a desktop OS. They (MS) do have some nice products like MS SQL, and VS, but in terms of server OS they still need to learn.
And just what would you cry if we mentioned all the appliances that run Linux and compare them with Windows … oh but wait, … which version of windows would we have to compare them with
Edited 2006-11-14 20:43
Supercomputers are not that new, it is MS decision not to indulge in that area.
“More than half of the clusters sold running Windows Compute Cluster Server (CCS) 2003 have more than 1,000 processors, Microsoft marketing director Shawn Hansen told us today at the Supercomputing event. Hansen declined to say how many CCS clusters have been sold.
The top system – a Dell cluster at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) – has 2,500 servers and owns the 27th spot on the current Top500 supercomputers list.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/14/microsoft_hpc_2006/
What is your point here??? I don’t get what are you trying to say?
Therefore I’ll address couple of scenarios:
1-You are trying to make a point contrary to my statement which you have quoted.
If this is the case, then you proved yourself to be an ignoramus and don’t mind time and effort to insult people around here who actually were involved in this field for some time. When did MS release Windows CSS the first time?
2- You are trying to show that MS product is actually a good performer in that area
Couldn’t be further from the truth here is some reading for you
http://www.top500.org/stats/27/os/
Note from your posting: “Hansen declined to say how many CCS clusters have been sold.” Which goes to prove that they in it just for the money. Supercomputer OS does not comply with MS licensing scheme therefore MS can’t make money in that area.
And since I feel really generous I will spend some time enlightening you:
Windows server 2003 datacenter 64 bit edition supports up to 64 cpu’s and addresses up to 1 TB RAM
(ref:
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/win2003x64_preview.asp your friend le parot)
SLES 10 up to 1,024 processors and supports up to 10 TB of RAM.
(ref:
http://www.novell.com/products/server/)
And just to conclude this short lesson, in my view cluster != supercomputer, eventhough the debate is still on. In short NotParker please don’t bother to post if you don’t have something of substance that you would like to share with us.
Windows CCS was released in June 2006 and shipped in August 2006.
The NCSA Windows CCS with 900 processors came in #130 on the Top 500 list in June:
http://access.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Releases/06.28.06_Top500_deb.html
I believe it was running a beta version of CCS.
Edited 2006-11-15 21:18
“The NCSA Windows CCS with 900 processors came in #130 on the Top 500 list in June: ”
Can NOT be true!!!
As per MS specs for WCCS: “Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003 supports up to four processors per server.”
( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/ccs/sysreqs.mspx
)
more likely 896 cpu’s or as MS published:
“One such collaboration is with the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003 served as the underlying operating system for a new HPC cluster that recently achieved 4.1 trillion computations per second (teraflops) on 896, 64-bit Intel Xeon processors. This result, arrived at by using Dell PowerEdge 1855 blade servers, Cisco Topspin InfiniBand switches and Force10 Gigabit Ethernet (GigE) switches, was sufficient to place the system at 130th on the Top500 list. The cluster, named Lincoln, will serve strategic campus and state initiatives, with its peak performance approaching 6 teraflops.”
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/jun06/06-28isc.msp…
Further from the requirements page :
Software Requirements
The Windows 2003 Computer Cluster Pack must be installed on a supported operating system. The supported operating systems are identical for both the head and compute nodes. They include:
Windows Server 2003 Standard x64 Edition
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition
Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard x64 Edition
Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition
Which makes it about 224 x Price of W2k3 + WCCS very affordable (NOT) for mediocre performance. Have you asked yourself why MS is hiding the number of wccs sold? By the way did you notice that these comments are just confirming my statement about windows originating as an OS for little boxes and just being the new kid in the block when it comes to more advanced computing?
You are absolutely right!
Why is computer software the only industry where we excoriate the product manufacturer for making their products standardized with other products from other manufacturers?
Imagine if every Iron looked and worked totally different?
Or every car had a very different control system, with the steering wheel (when they had one) in a different place, and even used a different method of indicating speed, amount of fuel, and different ways of turning on wipers, lights, etc…
Imagine if every book came in it’s own custom layout (read page 23, then page 112, then page 2, etc…)?
It’s silly. I like that an OS integrates the best UI ideas that we know of. The bottom line for an OS for me is that it makes it easy to run APPS!!!
And OS isn’t the end, in and of itself… It is the means to run applications.
I won’t be upgrading to Office 2007, because Microsoft changed the UI so much, I can’t get used to it. I found nothing wrong with the UI used from Office for Windows on Windows 3.1 to Office 2003. This new UI sucks.
I won’t be moving to IE 7 on Windows XP because the new UI Sucks. If I could run IE 7 in IE 6 mode, I’d upgrade.
I don’t need eyecandy. I like it… But, there are times I don’t need it. I DO want things to look pretty. But I don’t want to sacrifice speed and usability for pretty.
“Apple copied so much from 9x and XP like alt-tab
”
hum… not so fast… i beleive i was using lightswitch with OS 7….before win95 came out…
if i remember correctly!
And just where did the “window” concept come from? And what about the “mouse” (if memory serves me well Bill used to joke ’bout it)?
And just where did the “window” concept come from? And what about the “mouse” (if memory serves me well Bill used to joke ’bout it)?
Euh, the mouse was invented at the Stanford Research Institute by Dougles Engelbart in 1963. The windowing concept wasn’t invented at once, but came to be via the Sketchpad in 1963, and later Xerox Parc.
In any case, nor Apple, nor MS had anything to do with it.
Let us establish some timelines here:
“The Xerox Alto, developed at Xerox PARC in 1973, was an early minicomputer and the first computer to use the desktop metaphor and graphical user interface (GUI). While often cited as the “first personal computer”, some earlier systems like the Datapoint 2200 fit the term at least as well. Additionally, the Alto was in no way meant to become a commercially mass-produced item, and never did become such.”
“In January 1981, Steve Jobs completely took over the Macintosh project. Jobs and a number of Apple engineers visited Xerox PARC in December 1979, three months after the Lisa and Macintosh projects had begun. After hearing about the pioneering GUI technology being developed at Xerox PARC from former Xerox employees like Raskin, Jobs negotiated a visit to see the Xerox Alto computer and Smalltalk development tools in exchange for Apple stock options. The final Lisa and Macintosh operating systems mostly used concepts from the Xerox Alto, but many elements of the graphical user interface were created by Apple including the menubar and pop-up menus. The click-and-drag theory was developed by Jef Raskin.”…
“System 1.0, Finder 1.0 (January 1984)”
“The first model, called the Amiga 1000, was released in 1985 as a successor to the Commodore 64 and a rival to the Atari ST.”
“Microsoft Windows version 2 came out in 1987”
MS windows version1 ommited for obvious reasons
What does this timeline show?
For me it shows a always be late kind a tendency. “Let’s wait and see if there is market for this innovation” attitude. And this has not changed to the present days. Just makes you think with what right does MS use the word “innovation” in their marketing propaganda.
“I think Vista is prettier than OSX. Aqua is bland and too even more fisher price than Luna.”
bla bla bla!!!!
Despite the polished feel and decent performance, Vista still has relatively little to offer. Windows Media Player 11 and Internet Explorer 7 are both dowloadable for Windows XP. The majority of useful features for Vista fell by the wayside sometime ago, Vista just feels like XP with a glorified pretty interface and a sidebar that eats up more of your precious memory.
Look, the Inquirer may be ignorant of the new features, but there’s no reason that the rest of us should be …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#New_and_Improved_feature…
Well, out of those changes most of them are more makeup changes than actual changes, with the exception of Windows Mail, Windows Calendar and UAC. The indexing has been around since NT4 SP4_OP. The rest of it is either identical or close to identical with elements found in Win2K/XP/2K3.
The sidebar is not worth mentioning all the same it’ll be around for XP as well (as official releases – and not just as the not-so-legal version floating around).
EDIT: This is how to get Vista. Take XP, replace the Windows Layout with OS X Layout – and woooh… we have Vista
Edited 2006-11-14 00:29
EDIT: This is how to get Vista. Take XP, replace the Windows Layout with OS X Layout – and woooh… we have Vista
Very true. I’ve hacked my Windows XP theme DLLs so I could get my OS X-like theme on (I just can’t take the stock XP themes on a laptop) and it looks great. You can also get the Vista Aero theme on your XP system as well, as well as other modifications. With a few Windows Explorer and other extensions here and there you could quite easily replicate the functionality of Vista.
In terms of the work and time to genuine new features ratio, Windows Vista is absolutely pathetic. What on Earth have they been doing for five years?
This is how to get Vista. Take XP, replace the Windows Layout with OS X Layout – and woooh… we have Vista
Oh no, not again.
How about these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
Oh no, not again.
I am very well aware of what is different in Windows Vista, as you can see from the comments to the article. And most of changes _are_ cosmetic – as usual. There are however some changes which are more than cosmetic. Some are at low level (and naturally not cosmetic), others are at higher level, like ditching .dbx for .eml. It makes sense that one mail equals one file (everything is a file).
But most of what is “new” in Vista is already available, and has been available since NT4 (indexing since SP4 Option Pack). And from this we can also conclude that most of what is hyped about Vista has been available for approx. 7 years (or more if we’re talking “one mail equals one file”).
Yeah right, people & businesses, dump your Windows XPs, 2000s, and don’t even think of Vista — everything is already available under NT 4 🙂
Man, you need to be more realistic. You really do.
If you don’t see anything really new or not enought new stuff in Vista (compared to, for example, XP SP2), then any discussion is pointless.
Enjoy using Windows NT 🙂
P.S.
And you don’t have to mod me down just because you disagree.
Edited 2006-11-14 14:29
Some people don’t need to upgrade just because. Don’t fix what is not broken.
Yeah right, people & businesses, dump your Windows XPs, 2000s, and don’t even think of Vista — everything is already available under NT 4 🙂
That’s not what I wrote. However, I don’t see a reason to upgrade from Win2K/XP/2K3 to Vista. NT4 is a different issue though – unless it does exactly what you want it to do. There is little – if anything – to gain in upgrading from NT5.x to NT6.
gonzo – you really ought to _read_ what people write.
I didn’t say there was nothing really new. One could however say that there isn’t enough new things. One could also claim there are too many new things. It depends what we are looking at. I concentrate on the desktop implementation and the lower levels, while cosmetic changes (like updating WMP to v.11) are quite irrelevant to me.
You _are_ using Windows NT if you are using Vista. Windows 2000 == NT 5.0 , XP == NT 5.1 (or 5.2 if it is the 64-bit version), Win2K3 == NT 5.2 and Vista == NT 6.0.
Personally I’m using Win2K3.
P.S. I don’t mod people down if I disagree with them. Heck, I might even mod them up if they have something interesting to say, even if I disagree.
Yes, it is. You wrote:
But most of what is “new” in Vista is already available, and has been available since NT4
There, you see, you wrote: NT4!!!!
And please, stop twisting my words. And stop trying to be smartass by explaining that Windows 2000/XP/2K3/Vista are in “NT family”. We all know that. When I wrote Windows NT, I was talking about NT4, THE ONE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, you know. I use computers long long enough to know about and the differences between Microsoft Xenix, DOS, Win 3.1/NT/9x/2000,XP. Please.
You need to get more realistic about Vista. To say that most of what is new in Vista is already available since NT (that is NT4 !) is just plain ridiculous.
Yes, most of what is available in Vista has been available since NT4. That’s a fact. However, you claimed my message was: “Yeah right, people & businesses, dump your Windows XPs, 2000s, and don’t even think of Vista — everything is already available under NT 4 :-)”
It is _not_ my message. You claimed I wrote “everything”. I didn’t – I wrote “most”. And most of it _is_ available in NT4.
If you don’t want to be smartassed, then don’t act like a smartass. It’ll come back to haunt you. If you want me to understand you’re talking about NT4, you must write NT4. If not I’ll read it as any version of NT.
You need to do some research. You obviously know nothing at all about OS’es, or the history of Windows. I don’t think you ever tried NT4. Fact is that most of the functionality in Vista is available in NT4. Incl. indexing, .eml and separate contacts. Of course the applications are newer in Vista than in NT4, but that is to be expected with 11 years difference. But the main functionality is unchanged, no matter what you want me to believe.
Take a look here and you’ll see that Vista has very little new to offer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
If you want me to understand you’re talking about NT4, you must write NT4. If not I’ll read it as any version of NT.
Oh, I’m sure you will. That’s why I said you’re smartass. Now you’re just proving it.
Take a look here and you’ll see that Vista has very little new to offer:
Sure, it is a very short page
LOL No real changes, just eye-candy, right 🙂
Anyway, since Vista has nothing much to offer, I expect basically no one to upgrade. Well, i guess, we’ll see in about 2-3 years from now. People said the same thing about XP vs 2000 vs NT. Businesses too. Yet..
You need to do some research. You obviously know nothing at all about OS’es, or the history of Windows. I don’t think you ever tried NT4.
LOL I used NT4 Workstation to make my living as a programmer back in 90’s, and I still do programming for living today (on Windows), so.. On the other hand, you’re just ignorant about everything Microsoft related.
But the main functionality is unchanged, no matter what you want me to believe.
LOL Since when the *main* functionality should be changed anyway? Huh?? Not sure that anyone wants that.
Man, you’re just plain ignorant about Vista, just like about XP SP2. Mind you, this is what you said:
This is how to get Vista. Take XP, replace the Windows Layout with OS X Layout – and woooh… we have Vista
So long, you can continue to be ignorant as long as it pleases you..
Edited 2006-11-14 17:05
You are deliberately misquoting me, and the debate ends here, and misrepresenting my views on Windows and Microsoft.
If you read my post, you’d know that I’ve praised Microsoft on several occasions and bashed Gnome/KDE at the same time.
I have also praised Gnome/KDE and bashed Microsoft.
The fact you don’t grasp the desktop metaphor says a lot about your lack of deeper understanding.
BTW: Being a VB-“coder” doesn’t make you a developer. Au contraire!
Look, dude. You lost the debate. Very clearly, “most” of the new features in Vista haven’t been around since NT4. You can’t even enumerate the features you think were in NT4. So, have a nice day — and try doing a little reading before you shoot off your mouth.
Now, that’s a right out lie.
I wrote that indexing had been a part of Windows since NT4. And most of the elements found in Vista could be found in Win2K/XP/2K3. Most of the elements can also be found in NT4.
I haven’t made a list of elements one can find, but nobody asked me to do so. And I don’t have to.
The reason why I won’t debate with gonzo is because he is being offensive, deliberately misquoting me, randomly picking out certain sentences and leaving out other sentences (just like NotParker does), and calling me ignorant of anything Microsoft-related, despite the fact I’ve been using Microsoft software for the last 21 years. I probably wouldn’t do that if I had been ignorant of anything Microsoft-related.
To your information I never wrote that most of the “new” features in Vista had been around since NT4. I wrote that most features in Vista had been around since NT4. Or put another way. There is very little new in Vista. Apart from UAC and Aero, and certain lower level elements there is nothing new. Of course the lower level elements make a certain difference. However, I have never claimed otherwise.
Now, that’s a right out lie.
It’s not a lie to point out your tendency toward hyperbole, dylanmrjones.
I wrote that indexing had been a part of Windows since NT4. And most of the elements found in Vista could be found in Win2K/XP/2K3. Most of the elements can also be found in NT4.
Look, anyone with any common sense can see that you’re lamely trying to imply that most of the new features are also found in NT4.
I haven’t made a list of elements one can find, but nobody asked me to do so. And I don’t have to.
Of course you don’t have to. Because you backed yourself into a corner.
The reason why I won’t debate with gonzo is because he is being offensive, deliberately misquoting me, randomly picking out certain sentences…
Pot, meet kettle.
o your information I never wrote that most of the “new” features in Vista had been around since NT4. I wrote that most features in Vista had been around since NT4.
So, list them. I’d love to see a comparison. But we both know that you won’t do that, right?
I’m getting dizzy from my toothache (and the medicine), so I’ve only created a small list with a minimum of items and comments. I haven’t really explained this list, so I’ll do that later. But it ought to serve as a beginning – or at least so I hope.
New:
Windows Aero 1
User Account Control
Ditching .dbx and .wab for separate mails and contacts (GREAT feature, though easy to do also with Windows95/NT4).
Already available*:
Search with indexing
Shell
Sidebar
Problem Reports and Solutions
Windows Mail (Outlook Express 7)
Windows Calendar
Windows Photo Gallery
Windows Fax and Scan
Windows DVD Maker
Windows Meeting Space (replacing NetMeeting)
Games (some have been updated, some are new, some have been removed)
Windows Experience Index (formerly Windows Performance Rating)
Windows Backup
Windows Update
System Restore
Windows Installer
Windows Movie Maker
Windows Contacts (replacing Addressbook – Windows Contacts ought to be backported, the same goes for Windows Mail. Using separate files for contacts and emails are the only thing in Vista that might make me switch – however, same functionality has been available since Windows95 and NT4 – just very underutilized)
Windows Task Manager
Windows Internet Explorer
Windows Media Player
Media Center
IIS
Windows Defender
Parental controls
*May only be available as older versions, or or with more limited functionality or as 3rd party applications.
1: I do not consider Aero-looking msstyles as Aero.
It’s not a lie to point out your tendency toward hyperbole, dylanmrjones.
Another empty claim. At the very least give some examples (e.g. quote me _and_ post a link to the comment, just in case I’m quoted out of context).
Look, anyone with any common sense can see that you’re lamely trying to imply that most of the new features are also found in NT4.
I am _not_ implying that. I am clearly stating that most of the features in Vista is present in earlier versions. It is you and gonzo who interpretes my posts as if I was implying such a thing.
Of course you don’t have to. Because you backed yourself into a corner.
Nope, I haven’t. I seldom do that. However, I might look at things very differently than those I argue with. Sometimes we actually agree but don’t realize that until later. That happens sometimes. Perhaps a language barrier?
Pot, meet kettle.
Just find one point, where I am misquoting gonzo or anybody else, or are picking sentences randomly. Oh… wait. You can’t, because I don’t do that.
So, list them. I’d love to see a comparison. But we both know that you won’t do that, right?
A short list is available. There is little explanation, but that’s due to my toothache. Please ask for clarification whereever you need it, and I’ll do my best to explain it.
And here we can see NotParker, gonzo, tomcat and CuriosityKills on the road :p
“If you read my post, you’d know that I’ve praised Microsoft on several occasions and bashed Gnome/KDE at the same time.
I have also praised Gnome/KDE and bashed Microsoft. ”
So you bash anyone.
Edited 2006-11-14 18:14
Whenever I consider it is deserved. I also praise anyone whenever I consider it is deserved. Usually it means that Windows-fans, Gnome-fans, KDE-fans and OS X-fans all join forces to mod me down
Anyway, since Vista has nothing much to offer, I expect basically no one to upgrade. Well, i guess, we’ll see in about 2-3 years from now. People said the same thing about XP vs 2000 vs NT. Businesses too. Yet..
Yet…Microsoft had more trouble getting people to upgrade to XP than any of their previous systems.
Trouble was, those people were largely right about XP. It wasn’t a big deal over Win2k. I won’t say the same thing about Vista over XP though.
And NotParker, gonzo, tomcat and CuriosityKills are on the road :p
“It is _not_ my message. You claimed I wrote “everything”. I didn’t – I wrote “most”. And most of it _is_ available in NT4.”
Most of what’s in OSX 10.4 is in OSX 10.0, yet OSX 10.4 was hailed as the Second Coming.
At slashdot, new threads pop up heralding every new 0.0.1 build of the Linux kernel, which have nothing new except tweaks and fixes.
So why shouldn’t people look forward to the new Vista features as well?
Well, I don’t care what people do on /.
I don’t come there. And honestly I couldn’t care less about minor revisions of the Linux kernel. I watch them to see if something is added that I really really need, but my kernel is from somewhere around May 2005, so it’s probably very outdated by now (I pretty much stick with GLSA-based updates).
People can look forward to anything they want. But I want the same right to tell them that they are hunting something they already have. I despise that kind of hype, and prefer sticking to cold facts. They work – hype doesn’t.
Big idiot panes eating up precious desktop space, woo hoo! Really packing the new features into this one.
You are aware that you can turn the Sidebar off, if you’re running a puny desktop, right?
Oh, wait. You weren’t aware … oops …
Too bad the original idea about replacing the start bar|taskbar|systray with the sidebar didn’t materialize in the end. That would have been really great. OTOH nothing really prevents anyone from writing some gadgets implementing a tasklist, a notification area or start menu. And reducing the size of the start bar|taskbar|systray-combo isn’t exactly hard (I assume people knows how to resize the taskpanel-thingy).
Well, I wouldn’t mourn too much. Apple thought that the start bar was useful enough that they copied it with their own dock bar…
Except that the Apple dock is a take off the NeXT dock which had most of the same functionality but looked a bit different (and was usually on a side of the screen, not the bottom).
But, other than being very different (although solving the same problem), and pre-dating the Win95 start bar (if you go back to NeXT); other than that it’s a total rip-off!
It’s not that everything Apple has ever done was original, and that they’ve taken nothing from Windows. It’s just that what you just said was completely wrong.
first, i am happy for windows users. even though the RAM “suggestions” (2GB) are ludicrous, even laughable, and the retail price is likewise insane, any improvement is good. that said, i wonder how much you can extract out of these reviews that are reflecting on a week or so with this new product.
Browser: ELinks/0.11.1-1-debian (textmode; Linux 2.6.17-2-686 i686; 91×34-3)
I already have Vista. The theme looks GREAT on windows XP.
I’m reminded of the taskbar/start-menu add-ons for Windows 3.x. “It’s just like Windows 95!” those who had only heard of Microsoft’s new OS would claim. Then they’d actually try Windows 95 and, well, there was no going back.
The same happens with those Linux folk who use one of the many Aqua themes. “It’s just like OS X!”
Except, us Linux folk do not make money off imitating the competition. Also a lot of the thinking behind imitation is to make new users “more at home”.
The same happens with those Linux folk who use one of the many Aqua themes. “It’s just like OS X!”
You never hear anybody say that. You might hear somebody say that it looks just like OS X – but I’ve never heard anyone claiming Linux to be OS X. Nor have I heard anything like that about Windows 3.1x. I don’t think users of Calmira believe their system is just like Win32.
The difference between Vista and XP is however a lot smaller than between 16-bit Windows and 32-bit Windows. You ought to know that.
That’s somewhat silly. Perhaps someone new to Linux, who is using Linux to impress their friends, would say that, but nobody else (well, I guess Windows apologists would say that too).
When I list the myriad reasons I think Linux is superior to Windows, themes are never a consideration. It’s the same with most Linux users. To say otherwise is sheer buffoonery.
“themes are never a consideration”
I feel a little embarrassed at this, but I just bought a x800pro, ÂŁ77 off ebay but so my windows would wobble lol.AIGLX/Beyrl and I have spent 2 days spinning a white cube :sob:
I do think people here are underestimating the draw of aero, I think the Media center stuff is interesting, but I think Microsoft are overestimating the draw it has. It will make a new PC *look* a new PC. I think its tough to say whether it adds any *real* productive value, over say…a large monitor, but it is new.
Don’t get me wrong, they are important, but as far as Vista goes, it is the DRM that worries me the most.
it is the DRM that worries me the most.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The only difference with regards to DRM between Vista and Windows XP is that Vista supports more media formats. These additional media formats may include new and different forms of DRM (Blu-Ray, HD-DVD). Older formats and files are unaffected. How is supporting additional formats a bad thing?
Nope, it means exactly what I think it means. I like telling my computer what I want it to do. For instance, if I want to rip a DVD for my own personal use, I don’t see a problem with it and I’m going to do it. I don’t need my OS telling me what is allowed and what isn’t.
Maybe Microsoft took a big step back and said, heck, let’s let our users decide, but since they’ve never done that with anything, I doubt that’s the case now.
I can handle people trying to break in to my machine and viruses, but I can’t handle, and won’t tolerate my OS telling me how many of my own computers I can install something on and how many times I can play a given song file, and generally what I can and can’t do with my computer.
Windows XP is bad enough, and I’m sure it has gotten worse with Vista. So the next time you want to through out amusing movie quotes, I suggest you do it with all the other 13 year olds.
Nope, it means exactly what I think it means. I like telling my computer what I want it to do. For instance, if I want to rip a DVD for my own personal use, I don’t see a problem with it and I’m going to do it. I don’t need my OS telling me what is allowed and what isn’t.
The point is that Vista is no different than XP, 2000, NT4, NT3.5, NT3.1, 98SE, 98, 95, 3.11, 3.1, 3.0, etc. in this regard. In fact, it’s no different than Ubuntu 6.10 or OpenBSD 4.0.
There’s nothing in Vista that stops you from ripping a DVD or running programs of your own choice (save for kernel modifications in the 64-bit version).
You obviously do not know what you are talking about. As we all know, XP had a lot more anti-piracy functionality built in that any of the previous releases, so your statement that Vista is no different than XP and all its grandparents is patently false. There were no protections in 95/98/Me/NT3.51, and hardly any in NT4/2000. They were introduced with XP and its software friends and they have been “improved” upon in Vista.
I have absolutely no such limitations whatsoever on Ubuntu or OpenBSD (I know. I use both extensively), so I have no idea what you are talking about, and neither do you.
As we all know, XP had a lot more anti-piracy functionality built in that any of the previous releases
Stating that “we all know” something doesn’t make it true.
Would you care to back up your claim that Windows (any version) prohibits DVD ripping? Or that Windows prohibits the running of specific software (except for rootkits/unsigned kernel extensions in 64-bit 2003/Vista)?
Or are you going to continue sprouting pure FUD?
How is, for example, ripping a DVD harder in XP than in Ubuntu? In both cases you download a DVD ripping program, select how you want to rip it, click rip and wait. In fact in my experience the DVD ripping software for windows is far easier to use than that for linux.
I’ll share another random thought that just sprang to mind. A friend of mine often quotes somebody else who said, *”Winning an argument on the Internet is like winning the special olympics. Sure you won, but you are still retarded.”
My almost 20 year experience with Microsoft products and my 12 year experience with Linux clearly shows me that Linux is infinitely more free in many ways; including this one. If your experience shows you differently, well, you are entitled to your own opinion; as am I.
* No offense intended towards the Special Olympics or its athletes who in most cases operate on a far better level that the rest of us.
“The only difference with regards to DRM between Vista and Windows XP is that Vista supports more media formats.”
You obviously haven’t read the EULA. Compare the two (XP and Vista) and then see if you feel the same.
I guess the overriding question is, Vista is better than, what? I have been using the RC1 (5600) release of Vista for a month on an IBM T/42p (PM 1.8, 1 Gig Ram, 80g 7200, ati fire gl 128m) and it ground to a halt. The UI was unimpressive (but according to MS fully runable), and even with aero completely disabled sat at 450m standing still. God forbid I actually try to play a game with 3d capability. That version of Vista was a complete slug and none the more functional than my previous xp installation. Even less so because multitasking often defined itself as closing several applications so another could eat my eversovaluable hardware capability. Vista cannot claim to be a better solution than a current xp installation run with responsibility. I admit this might be better than xp in the hands of an inexperienced/new user, but that has yet to be seen. Anyone who knows what they are doing will get more X for X out of xp. I think that is where the media is frustrating those of us who bother to place two pents into knowing our systems.
Vista is bloated. I don’t ever remember thinking, “I would give up half my current resources for better security!” But, I guess the economy needs a bloated reason to blow more cash.
I have been using the RC1 (5600) release of Vista for a month
RC1 was horrible compared to RC2 which I am using as my main Media Center PC. It rocks.
RTM is much better than RC2.
Using RC1 as a benchmark for Vista RTM is silly.
To say it’s silly when it is all the company allowed to be seen, is well, silly in itself. RC1-5600 was released to public scrutiny while RC2 was closed, and yes, I take copyright seriously so BT was not an option.
Everyone keeps saying RC2 was a (by far) better release than 5600, but the results of hardware usage appear to have changed little, as well as claims from MS themselves that your non-dx-10 games will run 10-15% slower than on a native DX-9 system.
The result of both RC1 and RC2 in media and experience has been no less than “bloat” across the board. If this is where the direction of a ‘modern’ OS should be than I welcome you to try the latest fedora core.
Bloat, hardware freeze, and pretty animations does not equal functionality or security. The OS does have a place, and that place is to securely run my system while at the same time getting out of my way. Funny how I have managed to get xp to do this sitting quietly with a 172M committment.
To say it’s silly when it is all the company allowed to be seen, is well, silly in itself. RC1-5600 was released to public scrutiny while RC2 was closed
Actually RC2 was open to the public if you checked for 2-3 days. Thats when I snagged my copy.
I’m not sure why you continue to “review” RC1 when RC2 was so much better and RTM is even better than RC2 according to reasonably objective sites.
“I’m not sure why you continue to “review” RC1 when RC2 was so much better and RTM is even better than RC2 according to reasonably objective sites.”
Possibly because the issue of hardware curve and system bogdown has not been addressed?
I guess I should ask you why you defend RTM for the same reasons considering you cannot address games/memory usage/general system bloat?
Edited 2006-11-14 04:55
Alot of the problems have been addressed, being stubborn and testing a obsolete RC will not change that. Check out the RTM or even RC2, and you’ll see. You can find RC2 on the net, just see for yourself
Considering that according to your post you were using RC1, and RC2 was a big improvement over RC1, your statements may be a bit stale, try the gold version, or RC2, the differences are amazing. Meanwhile, I need to grab the salt
If the Inquirer says it’s good, then it must be right? Right?
i]If the Inquirer says it’s good, then it must be right? Right?[/i]
Its more like … If the Inquirer says anything remotely nice about Microsoft software then the software must be FANTASTIC.
Yup. Proverbial pigs are flying out of the Inq’s arse.
I’m personally loving Vista.
How can a OS be ‘better’ if it required at least a 1GB of ram just to run itself adequately?
It makes me cry to think of what little Vista adds, but how the corresponding resources have gone through the roof.
I use WinXP, I’m a normal PC user, but I’m not at all drawn at the concept of buying a new computer, or to get a new computer, only for the speed/memory improvements it may bring to be negated by the OS.
In any case, like a lot of my colleague, our next move will most likely to be to a OSX. With an iBook one can still run Linux and Windows if they want as well.
How can a OS be ‘better’ if it required at least a 1GB of ram just to run itself adequately? It makes me cry to think of what little Vista adds, but how the corresponding resources have gone through the roof.
Hmmmmm. Newegg.com lists 512MB of memory for $45. 1GB of memory costs around $88. So, in essence, you’re complaining about an increase of $40 over the course of 5 years since XP was released? Alrrrrrrrrrighty, then…
n any case, like a lot of my colleague, our next move will most likely to be to a OSX. With an iBook one can still run Linux and Windows if they want as well.
That explains your complaint a bit.
$45 is actually quite a large investment just to run an OS. Considering the effort and the restructuring in Vista one could and should have expected it would use less resources instead of more resources.
$45*2000 machines… I wouldn’t recommend an upgrade if the company is satisfied with what it has running.
BTW: You got modded up. The post didn’t deserve to be modded down.
Edited 2006-11-14 20:10
$45 is actually quite a large investment just to run an OS.
That’s a bogus scenario. People generally don’t upgrade their hardware solely to run an OS; there are exceptions to this rule, but they tend to be OS geeks, not mainstream users. End users upgrade because their older hardware either doesn’t function — or they want the inherent benefits of improved hardware technology.
Considering the effort and the restructuring in Vista one could and should have expected it would use less resources instead of more resources.
I know this may come as a shock to you, but it’s an established corollary that, over time, software will inevitably continue to grow in size and complexity to consume all available resources. MS didn’t invent this phenomenon. Linux is likewise “bloated” (if you want to use that term) and, in many cases, the latest distros won’t run on a lot of older hardware. If you want new features, the primary way to add them is to either suck up the new bloat or get rid of older features. Given legacy compatibility requirements for customers, cutting out old functionality isn’t often possible.
$45*2000 machines… I wouldn’t recommend an upgrade if the company is satisfied with what it has running.
Well, duh, I agree. That’s basic common sense.
BTW: You got modded up. The post didn’t deserve to be modded down.
Thanks, I agree.
That’s a bogus scenario. People generally don’t upgrade their hardware solely to run an OS; there are exceptions to this rule, but they tend to be OS geeks, not mainstream users. End users upgrade because their older hardware either doesn’t function — or they want the inherent benefits of improved hardware technology.
In that case it was pointless of you to mention the prices for an upgrade.
I know this may come as a shock to you, but it’s an established corollary that, over time, software will inevitably continue to grow in size and complexity to consume all available resources. MS didn’t invent this phenomenon. Linux is likewise “bloated” (if you want to use that term) and, in many cases, the latest distros won’t run on a lot of older hardware.
This is no shock for me. I have several times in relation to Vista and Gnome, and modern software in general, pointed towards Wirth’s Law. And yes, you can find a lot of codewise bloated software in Linux, and I like that no more.
If you want new features, the primary way to add them is to either suck up the new bloat or get rid of older features. Given legacy compatibility requirements for customers, cutting out old functionality isn’t often possible.
That’s not entirely correct. With a proper modular construction there will be no need for higher resource usage (except for harddisk usage), since you’ll only be loading the modules you need, when you need them. Features != Bloat. Sloppy Coding == Bloat. That’s also the point of Wirth’s Law. That software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster. Due to poor coding. Software _will_ grow, but it can happen in several ways. Uncontrolled embarrasing growth as seen in Gnome, XP and Vista – or controlled growth as seen in VirtualDub, GNUstep, and some other applications/platforms.
The unacceptable high growth is usually found in “commercial quality” software, no matter the license of said software.
Compare VirtualDub with Camtasia Studio and you’ll understand what I mean. Or K-Meleon with Firefox. Or GNUstep with Gnome. Or many of the Gnome apps with non-Gnome specific apps. There’s a lot of codewise bloat there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bloat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law
Oh come on, $45 as a percentage of the price of a new PC is negligible, and if you can’t afford to bring your hardware up to spec, then spending several hundred dollars on a new OS is probably not your main priority. Increasing your RAM, regardless of which OS you are running, is the most important upgrade you can make – more RAM is invariably the biggest boost to performance of any upgrade.
Companies don’t tend to upgrade just the OS – like most people, they simply buy a new machine with the OS preinstalled, and presumably those new machines will have sufficient hardware to meet the requirements of the OS and the software being run on them.
And since hardware power is increasing rapidly, and the price of things like RAM is constantly falling, there is no reason why anyone should skimp on features (or presentation for that matter) just to bring the memory usage of the OS down to meet the capabilities of outdated machines.
As RAM becomes more and more of a cheap commodity, and 64 bit machines with the capacity to address huge amounts of RAM become more common, there is no reason why OS developers shouldn’t take advantage of the capabilities of new technology. The days of optimising programs by writing parts of them in assembly or even binary just to save a few bytes of memory usage have long since passed – now we have managed code, which while less memory efficient, is easier for programmers to work with, and since the expense of a bit of extra RAM is only an issue to the very poor or cheapskates, I don’t see software developers going back to the good old days of painstakingly optimising every last bit unless they have a good reason to do so.
I don’t see why anyone, in late 2006, would want to have a machine with less than 1GB of RAM (irrespective of the OS you are using), but maybe that is just me.
Remember when XP was coming out? And all the people “Oh man I’m totally gonna stick with 2000, it’s the best ever, look at that stupid new interface?!”. In the end, most everyone switched to XP. It will be the same with Vista, people are just resistant to change to begin with.
I don’t understand your statement. The majority of users were running 9X versions of the OS when XP came out. Not 2000.
The XP adoption cycle is still continuing, compared to the rush for 95 which was quite manic, has been steady as people have bought an “XP machine” to replace there old one.
If you look at Microsofts luanches they have got bigger and grander, but people have rushed out to buy them less and less. I suspect vista will be no different…even though it has the advantage of being released after the longest time between releases(someone please phrase that better lol).
People don’t like change, but Vista is not really all that different. In reality I suspect you will find that its not changed as much as you think from 95.
n reality I suspect you will find that its not changed as much as you think from 95.
Are you serious?
Actually Windows hasn’t changed much. Most of what Vista brings is basically a step back to how it was in Windows95.
True, applications have developed quite a bit, but the desktop experience is just as crippled today as it was in 1995. There has been a few minor improvements in that regard, and several steps back – but most of the work has been put into applications, rather than making the desktop work properly.
BTW: Gnome/KDE and OS X are no better in regard to a crippled desktop experience.
“BTW: Gnome/KDE and OS X are no better in regard to a crippled desktop experience.”
i have not used Gnome and KDE in a while. but i know… the finder is OSX sucks!!!!!! it is the worst part of the Mac experience! BUT…. expose…HAS absolutly altered the desktop experience forever! i can not live with out it!
and Vista’s “flip 3d”…. what ever!
I think he was referring to geeks. Most geeks were running Win2K, not Win9x.
Ummmm….
*cough*bullshit*cough*
Many of those people are STILL running Windows 2000!
I myself would still be running 2000, except for the addiction to cleartype I developed while using my laptop. I’d also submit to you that many of those who eventually did move on to Windows XP eventually did so with the purchase of a new machine and found themselves unable to find good drivers for their older OSes. Heck, as the other commentator said, many of those using OSes before XP were on Win9x, and would have stuck with their OS of choice, save for the inability to find good drivers, and Microsoft artifically limiting their software to NT5.x and up.
Of those who DO switch, what is the percentage that still uses classic? That’s the question which you should be asking…
–bornagainpenguin (who will be moving to OSX, Linux or bust…WinXP is my last Windows!)
Yea, I don’t use Luna when I use Windows. It really is one of the most butt ugly themes ever. And most of it’s not bad, I like the widget theming: It’s the stupid titlebars and panels I can’t stand! Too much color!
Nobody said that, because people weren’t running Windows 2000. They were running ME or 98/98SE, or perhaps Windows95.
You know the command prompt box in XP which was stuck with the old styling and could not be changed. Is this now styled the same as all the other ‘Windows’ all the time?
Also, can you know resize the width of the command prompt box by dragging the edge of the box?
The window borders are Aero-styled, the scrollbar remains in classic mode. Resizing the CMD window by dragging the edge works.
I think that’s because their command prompt is dependent on a certain number of columns (probably for badly written applications under it).
I imagine the only way to make it work then is to simple scale everything (text and all). Which, if what I’ve read about Vista’s graphics system, that should not only be possible but it should be quite easy.
I still think the best features XP has over 2000 are the “snap-to-grid” deskop, the lower boot-up times and…err, errrrr, errr, what else? Help me out here someone! 🙂
I really struggle to tell users what extra they’ll get over XP with Vista other than a new UI and UAC.
IMHO is XP 64 bit or Windows 2003 Servre that you can trick out into a workstation OS. The only Achilles heel for 64 bit XP is the fact that there are not enough drivers. Which incidentally will probably be the same for 64 bit Vista because it seems there is a slow adoption rate to 64 bit.
“Which incidentally will probably be the same for 64 bit Vista because it seems there is a slow adoption rate to 64 bit.”
General population doesn’t know what is a bit, don’t talk about 32 or 64 bits. The problem is not only the drivers. If you buy/download software you will get only 32 bit versions (mostly). Even if you get the choice, you still need to know if your OS is capable of running 64 bits applications. Haveing a 64 bits OS with 32 bits applications is senseless. That’s the problem in the Windows world, where applications are provided by their vendors/developers in their sites (or in bought packages).
In contrast, in Linux/(some BSDs) world you get your applications through the distro servers, compiled for your architecture. No need to care about 32 or 64 bits. That and the technicality of most Linux users make Linux one of the best platforms for 64 bit computing. So the adoption rate is slow in Windows (almost stagnant) but not in Linux. If you have a 64 bits processor, you certainly would want to unleash all its power.
Windows XP x64 is nothing special, it runs at the same speed for most applications, and requires more memory than XP x32. The driver support is terrible.
Ive tried to use x64 a number of times and it’s alway’s been the biggest PITA for no reward, if you have 3GB RAM > then i can see how it might be handy however 2GB < x32 is fine.
I agree that Windows 2003 is the best Windows OS so far, it runs very fast, has a number of handy features VSS and R2 makes Win2k3 even better (R2 != Win2k3 with SP1/2) as there are many new features in R2 (folder quota’s at last).
Just wondering if I should be looking at the 32 or 64 bit version use on an Athlon 64 3400? Will the 64bit version run faster or improve gaming performance, or will it just be a waste of ram? (1GB at the mo).
Is there any offical word on if DX9 games will run noticably slower in Vista than XP?
Some applications can have an increased gain in speed when working in 64 bits mode. Mostly audio/video processing and file compressing/decompressing. Games could perform better, but they have to be compiled for 64 bits. I think there are no 64 bits games available. The rest of applications really don’t use much of the processor power, so you won’t note anything at all. Only performance hungry programs can benefict, but they *must* be compiled for 64 bits. Good luck finding 64 bit binaries for Windows apps.
//Vista: ‘Polished, Speedy’//
You can polish a turd, bu its still a turd.
I modded you back up even tho’ your comment is flippant. The thing is, you are right in mentioning the trend to take up space with, for example, widgets. Certainly everyone has a right to have their desktop look the way they want it to look, but there seems to be a trend to eat up your workspace with things that are really not much more than eye candy (stuff that might display useful data, but that there are more unobtrusive ways to do it).
“And here we can see NotParker, gonzo, tomcat and CuriosityKills on the road :p”
This reminds me of the reason why I prefer other operating systems (nearly all of them) over Windows: most of these other OS’es do not claim to be omniscient as to what’s good for me or not.
This reminds me of the reason why I prefer other operating systems (nearly all of them) over Windows: most of these other OS’es do not claim to be omniscient as to what’s good for me or not.
Really? Would you mind providing a link to where Windows claims to be omniscient? I wasn’t aware that an OS, itself, could have an opinion.
“Really? Would you mind providing a link to where Windows claims to be omniscient? I wasn’t aware that an OS, itself, could have an opinion.”
No, but the people creating it do. I suspect the
Also, please forgive me for having a different perception. Or a perception at all 🙂
I keep think about this…Its nagged me for a long while.
I think about the words *polished* and *speedy*. Vista is not it. Without mentioning words like bloat or backwards compatibility.
Where would Microsoft be now if they had have focused on Speedy and polished. Vista *is* a monster of an operating system, and redefines the term “operating system” a media player, TV viewer(I know its had it something since 98), web browser, chat client.
Linux has moved faster than windows, for a variety of reasons. The reasons haven’t been Polished or Speedy. I heard the term “perpetual beta” for the first time the other day, and I thought thats why Linux is moving so fast.
You know, there are a number of things about these reviews AND the posted replies that crack me up…
People STILL badmouthing it based on the betas/RC’s when EVERY review calls it a new beast by comparison.
People STILL harping about the game performance in the betas and RC’s when they DIDN’T come with DirectX 10, and instead came with a buggy DX9 stack MS SAID UP FRONT is slow and consumes more resources than the version that will come with the final. (personally I still say calling it a release candidate and then NOT including one of the key technologies is using the WRONG term)
Of course, the REAL giggle comes from people bitching about the ‘confirmation’ security dialogs – which in use seem no more obtrusive than Ubuntu or OSX asking for the root password… Which in my mind proves something I’ve said all along about those operating systems – the public isn’t ready for them because the average user can’t be bothered to think about answering a simple yes/no question correctly, much less type in a password.