Windows Vista | Microsoft Official Site

  • Thread starter Thread starter dduardo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Windows
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
37 replies · 7K views
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
I think it looks quiet good... But its going to be Resource HEAVY!
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Its really like KDE
 
Anttech said:
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?
 
Resource happy resource happy. Is this bassically Windows XP with add-ons and 20 times slower?
 
Why would it have to be slower? It seems to me that they could make it faster than XP.
 
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."
 
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..
 
dduardo said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You can only view the Microsoft website with FireFox.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
That seems to make sense.
 
What hardware is the best for Vista?
 
Nothing000 said:
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.
 
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
 
Anttech said:
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.
 
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
 
Anttech said:
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.
 
Last edited:
.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
 
Last edited:
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.
 

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
Windows Vista: Microsoft's Next-Generation OS
  • dduardo
  • · Replies 22 ·
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
22