Windows Vista | Microsoft Official Site

[dduardo]

You can find the new site here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/default.aspx

Microsoft seems to set on the whole glass look because they have plenty of screenshots.

 

[-Job-]

Can't say i like the new look very much. I did see a cool feature though:

Windows Vista SideShow technology enables laptop manufacturers to include a secondary or auxiliary display in future laptop designs. This display can be used to easily view the critical information you need, whether the laptop is on, off, or in sleep mode. The convenience provided by these auxiliary displays will save time and battery life by allowing you to quickly view meeting schedules, phone numbers, addresses, and recent e-mail messages without having to start up your laptop.

 

[Anttech]

I think it looks quiet good... But its going to be Resource HEAVY!

 

[-Job-]

I'm getting a free version of Windows Vista from MSDNAA, i'll let you know what i think of it.

 

[dduardo]

Microsoft gave a presention on the lastest Vista build during a keynote in yesterdays CES International. Here is a list of the features they talked about:

1) Glass
2) Taskbar Previews
3) Task Switching (Alt+tab and flip 3d)
4) Sidebar
5) Start Menu Search
6) Quick Tabs
7) Parental Controls
8) Image/Video Preview
9) Basic Image Editing and backup of original file
10) Slideshow
11) Windows Media Player
12) Stacked Music Folders
13) Music Search
14) Integrated MTV Music Store in WMP

Here is my thought on the features:

1) Glass, flip 3d and the sidebar are just gimicks. I never use dashboard so I won't use the sidebar.

2) The taskbar previews idea doesn't really work with grouped application windows and is sort of gimicky

3)Alt+tab previews can be done using windows xp power toys.

4)The start menu search is as useful as spotlight by the clock. I never click on the button to use it.

5) Quick tabs is eh. The effort to switch to quick tabs mode and then pick the tab you want is too much compared to just looking at the titles of the tabs

6) Parental Control doesn't effect me

7) Image/Video Preview - Don't I see previews already in windows xp? The added information is pretty useless compared to the picture itself. I also don't need full motion video playback during preview. A screenshot is enough

8) Basic image editing built in is ok, but I would still use photoshop. Saving the original picture is a bit concerning. They better have a way to turn that off.

9) Slideshow - oooh, now with pretty borders. 3d party applications make this easy in windows xp

10) WMP - great, now I can sort and search by genre, album, group, etc. Whoop-dee-do. I can do that in itunes in windows xp.

11) Stacked music folders is a gimick.

12) Integrated music store = buy more stuff from microsoft

Overall I'm not impressed.

 

[iamsharpie]

And they still cling to that tired excuse of a security policy. But wait, I get glass windows and a neato music store!

Or I can shop indie and essential donate to artists that actually get my money.

I'm sorry if I sound rude or anything like that, but I find many linux distributions are quite usuable by certain users (those without kids and only use email, web browsing, and the occasional media file). The reason why Linux User Groups still exist is to provide those people someone who can help them with any problems. If you really think Linux has usability problems, look at a Windows forum sometime. The problems are very similar or absolutely ridiculous.

And my chief complaint at this point, having used GNU/Linux as a desktop AND looking forward to Vista, is the fact that I cannot customize my desktop easily. Great, they've added a sidebar. How about allowing users to decide what that sidebar is? KDE and Gnome allow me that functionality. Right now I have my most used programs sitting in a ceiling bar. I hardly ever use the desktop menu (start for the windows users) to actually do anything that isn't system related. In fact, I actually like using fluxbox since they eliminate the desktop menu completely.

And to anyone thinking that common users don't change their desktop, you're right. They DON'T, and they don't have to change it. It can be just the same, but that's not a reason to actually RESTRICT a user. They need to focus on security rather than User Interface.

Of course, when you base your bottom line on slipshod software, you get to sell the "upgrades" to the saps after the fact.

Let me put it bluntly. Microsoft isn't a software firm, but a marketing firm, pure and simple, and they do a great job of it.

 

[dduardo]

If you want the vista look in windows xp here it is:

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/26720124/

 

[Anttech]

Its really like KDE

 

[dduardo]

Its really like KDE

It's really like Windows XP.

 

[Nothing000]

I think it looks quiet good... But its going to be Resource HEAVY!

What do you think will be the minimun requirements? What do you think would be the system requirements to get it to actually run smoothly?

 

[moose]

Resource happy resource happy. Is this bassically Windows XP with add-ons and 20 times slower?

 

[Nothing000]

Why would it have to be slower? It seems to me that they could make it faster than XP.

 

[Nothing000]

I know this doesn't mean much, but this is what it says on the Windows site:
"Windows Vista is the first Windows operating system that has a user experience that can gracefully scale to the hardware capabilities of the computer it is installed on."

 

[Anttech]

Coming from the spin machine that is M$ marketing department :) Dont believe any of it.. Sure it could be fast, but rendering all those graphics will need a lot of mem and a fast proc...

It's really like Windows XP.

?? Not really.. The graphics are all changed, It looks more like a KDE enviorment to me..

 

[wibolo]

You can find the new site here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/default.aspx
Microsoft seems to set on the whole glass look because they have plenty of screenshots.

Does anyone know why I can't get the background image of that link's page ?
Thanks

 

[wibolo]

Anyone please ?

 

[dduardo]

Does anyone know why I can't get the background image of that link's page ?
Thanks

What browser are you using?

 

[Nothing000]

You can only view the Microsoft website with FireFox.

 

[Nothing000]

When do you guys think this will be released? I heard Gates say in an interview that it will be released late in the year, but when is that really?

 

[dduardo]

I believe the target date was October-November 2006. Microsoft wants the PCs that people buy for the holidays to be preloaded with Vista.

 

[Nothing000]

That seems to make sense.

 

[Sprinter]

What hardware is the best for Vista?

 

[dduardo]

What hardware is the best for Vista?

Microsoft hasn't realeased the specs. People won't know until RTM because of the continual optimzations Microsoft is doing.

 

[franznietzsche]

Why would it have to be slower? It seems to me that they could make it faster than XP.

That wouldn't be patting intel's back by making everyone by $2,000 systems to use it, now would it?
MS never did anything because it was good technology, they did it because it made money for them and intel.


Windows Vista is to XP what 98 was to 95. Except combined with massive resource waste. E17 is much more impressive given that it can run on half the resources.

 

[Anttech]

MS never did anything because it was good technology, they did it because it made money for them and intel.

That's unfair.. considering the first M$ windows was made for IBM, and not to mention DOS

 

[franznietzsche]

That's unfair.. considering the first M$ windows was made for IBM, and not to mention DOS

How is that unfair? Name one instance where good engineering won out over good marketeering in MS history. Not one where they coincided, but where good engineering sense clearly trumped the marketers. I can't think of any. In every case MS has acted in the interests of money first, not quality. And it has made them billions upon billions. Kudos to them for that. But my statement is hardly unfair.

 

[Anttech]

Ermm it is totally unfair, you are 100% biased, and by your own admitance you know zip about M$ technologies...

The development of .NET by M$ is by no means a "marketing" ploy. If you think it is then any technology done for Susi is also..

M$ also developed Dos for IBM on IBM's payrole, hardly a "marketing" ploy.

If you want more I will find more...

Just cause you don't like the OS means jack sh@t

 

[franznietzsche]

Ermm it is totally unfair, you are 100% biased, and by your own admitance you know zip about M$ technologies...

Being unfamiliar with due to lack of use, is not knowing "zip about." 100% biased? Not so bad. I will admit to heavy bias, of course I'm also heavily biased in favour of General Relativity over Newtonian gravity, and in favor of quantum mechanics over classical mechanics for describing the behavoir of electrons in an atom, if being biased means I've made my judgements based on the evidence I've seen.

Show me clear evidence, and I'll accept that.

The development of .NET by M$ is by no means a "marketing" ploy. If you think it is then any technology done for Susi is also..

.NET was an effort to keep people using MS only products (as opposed to using Java). MS is company that believes very strongly in its monoculture, and that people shouldn't use a single piece of software not made by them, including programming languages. Its about mindshare, which comes down to marketing. If applications are written for Java, then you don't necessarily need Windows to run them (this was of course the point of a write once run anywhere language). .NET was/is an effort to prevent that.

M$ also developed Dos for IBM on IBM's payrole, hardly a "marketing" ploy.

I said MS acts in the interests of money first, not quality engineering first, yes? This is a counterpoint how? How is this even relevant?

edit: And MS didn't develop DOS. Depending on who you talk to, they bought it or stole it from SCP and licensed it to IBM.

If you want more I will find more...

I doubt it, but allow me to counter:

Intentional incompatibilities between document versions of successive MSOffice versions, forcing you to upgrade to even view the files created by people who have upgraded. Its unnecessary, and its quite profitable.

Windows XP on installation zaps the MBR on the hard drive and installs its own. No option to stop this. This is plainly bad design, a leftover of MS's attempts to make their OSs unable to dual-boot with other operating systems. Again, good business, bad engineering.

Just cause you don't like the OS means jack sh@t

You're a very nice person.

 

[Anttech]

.NET was an effort to keep people using MS only products (as opposed to using Java). MS is company that believes very strongly in its monoculture, and that people shouldn't use a single piece of software not made by them, including programming languages. Its about mindshare, which comes down to marketing. If applications are written for Java, then you don't necessarily need Windows to run them (this was of course the point of a write once run anywhere language). .NET was/is an effort to prevent that.

LOL... Do you even know what .net is? And you can run .NET on Linux so it isn't just for windows

 

[Anttech]

Being unfamiliar with due to lack of use, is not knowing "zip about." 100% biased? Not so bad. I will admit to heavy bias, of course I'm also heavily biased in favour of General Relativity over Newtonian gravity, and in favor of quantum mechanics over classical mechanics for describing the behavoir of electrons in an atom, if being biased means I've made my judgements based on the evidence I've seen.

Irrelivent to this debate... GR and Microsoft windows really don't have anything in common, and by stating you are on the side of general scientific thinking, is nothing to do with wheather you know anything about M$ technology or not... Please don't try and obscure this point.

 

[Anttech]

I said MS acts in the interests of money first, not quality engineering first, yes? This is a counterpoint how? How is this even relevant?

edit: And MS didn't develop DOS. Depending on who you talk to, they bought it or stole it from SCP and licensed it to IBM.

Not biased?

 

[Anttech]

Show me clear evidence, and I'll accept that.

MS never did anything because it was good technology, they did it because it made money for them and intel.

You made the statement not me, u back it up. I said it is unfair, and already showed you that M$ worked for IBM not Intel... You have self admittedly stated you are "unfamiliar with due to lack of use," how can you possible then try and state what you did, when you know nothing about the technologies that M$ have made over the years?

Look, I am not an M$ biggit, I would just prefer that you wouldn't slant arguements for the sake of a dig at M$, if you could show you knew about the technologies then fine, but you cant.. If we were talking about something that you use daily and have experience with then fine...

Anyway as I said I am not an M$ Biggit, I use a varitity of Opperating systems, the one I use most and are most familure with is IOS...

 

[sid_galt]

I said MS acts in the interests of money first, not quality engineering first, yes?

If MS didnt do quality enginnering, it would lose money and reputation as it is.

quality engineering = making money in a free economy.

I am not a fan of Microsoft but the thing is that some their products are quality engineered because they work. Windows works because it is very user friendly so it is quality engineered in that area. These days they have been lagging behind in several areas which has predictably led people to other products and reduced income for microsoft.

 

[franznietzsche]

LOL... Do you even know what .net is? And you can run .NET on Linux so it isn't just for windows

You're not even arguing my point now. You're just trying to come up with stuff to say. Mono is not a Microsoft project. The purpose of .NET was and remains to prevent Windows from being marginalized by a middleware API not produced by Microsoft.

Irrelivent to this debate... GR and Microsoft windows really don't have anything in common, and by stating you are on the side of general scientific thinking, is nothing to do with wheather you know anything about M$ technology or not... Please don't try and obscure this point.

Not irrelevant. You accused me of being unfairly biased. I replied by stating that my opinion is based on the evidence I've seen.

Not biased?

SCP sued MS for patent infringement. In their opinion, MS stole it. So yes, that was not a biased statement. But you, being so much more knowledgeable about MS than me, would have known that right? So i have to assume that either, you have no case, and you know it, or you don't know as much as you like to pretend.

You made the statement not me, u back it up. I said it is unfair, and already showed you that M$ worked for IBM not Intel... You have self admittedly stated you are "unfamiliar with due to lack of use," how can you possible then try and state what you did, when you know nothing about the technologies that M$ have made over the years?

Again you are twisting my words. Unfamiliar does not equal 'knows nothing about." But since you can't come up with anything other than that, i can understand why you keep repeating it. If it makes you feel better, I've used every version of windows in the home line since 3.1 (3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, XP) as well as the more recent 'professional' ones (2000, XP Pro (not that there is a big difference between XP home and XP pro)). I've used Office 97/2000/XP. I've seen first hand what their decades of a lack of security policy has done (Word Macro that self-propagates through Email and does various nasties to your computer anyone?), and it can hardly be called 'quality.'

Look, I am not an M$ biggit, I would just prefer that you wouldn't slant arguements for the sake of a dig at M$, if you could show you knew about the technologies then fine, but you cant.. If we were talking about something that you use daily and have experience with then fine...

And you can't show that you know anything about the history of MS or the development of their products. You actually thought they developed MS-DOS before they licensed it to IBM (granted, large portions of it were rewritten by 2.0).

We're not talking about their technologies, we're talking about why they've developed them. This is a discussion of motive. And quality has never been a goal in its own right for them. Quality has been something where they have consistently aimed for the lowest mark that would still make them money.

Anyway as I said I am not an M$ Biggit, I use a varitity of Opperating systems, the one I use most and are most familure with is IOS...

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

If MS didnt do quality enginnering, it would lose money and reputation as it is.

quality engineering = making money in a free economy.

I am not a fan of Microsoft but the thing is that some their products are quality engineered because they work. Windows works because it is very user friendly so it is quality engineered in that area. These days they have been lagging behind in several areas which has predictably led people to other products and reduced income for microsoft.

Read the findings of fact from the DOJ trial. You'll find quite a different story. Monopoly control = making money in a free economy.

MS won out early on, not because their products were superior, but because they were far cheaper. CP/M was much better than QDOS/MS-DOS, but it cost $249 as opposed to $69 (IIRC). Once MS-DOS was firmly established on PCs, that was that. Then, when MS split from IBM, taking NT with them. Their popularity skyrocketed with Windows 95. Then begins the illegal monopolizing, forced upgrades, bullying of OEMs, and so on and so forth.

 

[sid_galt]

MS won out early on, not because their products were superior, but because they were far cheaper.

From a user's perspective, for ordinary day to day work I find Windows easier to use than either Mac or Linux. But even if their products won out because they were cheaper, they couldn't have won out if they had built poor products.

CP/M was much better than QDOS/MS-DOS, but it cost $249 as opposed to $69 (IIRC).

Possibly. But even if CP/M was much better, you can't say that DOS was bad and not a quality product. If it served the purpose of the user and cost less than CP/M, then for the user it was a quality product.

Then begins the illegal monopolizing, forced upgrades, bullying of OEMs, and so on and so forth.

1) Being illegal does not make it automatically wrong.

2) Forced upgrades? What do you mean? MS didn't force anyone to upgrade their software.

3) As to the bullying of OEMs, did MS violate the patents of the OEMs? If it did, then it was wrong.
But if it didn't then that is not bullying. Whatever happened to the OEMs then was not MS's fault.

 

[franznietzsche]

From a user's perspective, for ordinary day to day work I find Windows easier to use than either Mac or Linux. But even if their products won out because they were cheaper, they couldn't have won out if they had built poor products.

You don't seem to understand how a free market actually works. The best marketed product, not the best product is what wins. MS has one of the world's best marketing dpmts.

Computers are not furniture. The majority of consumers do not know what poor quality software is, because they do not understand software. If a chair breaks on them, they know it was poorly made. If their computer can't run for more than a few days at a time without problems, or if they're constantly fighting to hold back malware, they think that's just how computers are, they don't realize that the software is poorly made. A poor product only hurts you if people can tell its a poor product. With computers, the average joe doesn't even know the difference between hardware and software.

Possibly. But even if CP/M was much better, you can't say that DOS was bad and not a quality product. If it served the purpose of the user and cost less than CP/M, then for the user it was a quality product.

Have you ever used DOS? As a CLI, it was abysmal when it was invented. Bash, the standard shell prompt in linux, has not changed much since 1987, when it was released. DOS-Prompt has never ever been as useful or functional (MS is just starting to try to catch up on that with MSH i.e. Monad).

1) Being illegal does not make it automatically wrong.
2) Forced upgrades? What do you mean? MS didn't force anyone to upgrade their software.
3) As to the bullying of OEMs, did MS violate the patents of the OEMs? If it did, then it was wrong.
But if it didn't then that is not bullying. Whatever happened to the OEMs then was not MS's fault.

Do you know what OEMs are? Or did you ignore what I said about reading the Findings of Fact from the DOJ trial? OEMs are companies like Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, who sell computer systems. MS used punitive pricing to punish any OEMs who offered computers with anything other than Windows on them. They threatened to pull licenses to sell windows on some of them if they sold competing products. That is not only illegal, its wrong. Unless of course you want to say that's not MS's fault?

Monopolizing is illegal for a reason, it destroys the free market. That is bad.

Have you ever tried to open an Office document from a later version of Office in an older one? Forced upgrades. See my above post.

 

[Anttech]

Monopolizing is illegal for a reason, it destroys the free market. That is bad.

I aggree with this.

The rest of what you say is in the majority just your oppinion. I won't debate with someone who is not mature (and you arent) enough to not patronise.

 

[Sprinter]

anyway, microsoft does really produce good products.
easy to use, easy to update, easy to find reference books for learning.