"Vista Beta 2 is scheduled to launch sometime in November. While that might be a fair bit ahead in time, there are a number of new features that have already been added to Windows Vista since the Beta 1 build. In this article, we will briefly discuss the integration in Windows Vista and where Microsoft is headed in its journey towards releasing its much-delayed OS." In the meantime, a new Vista build has been leaked to the internet. Screenshots included.
Post a Comment
Member since:---
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:---
Member since:
2005-07-21
Member since:
---
Member since:2005-10-02
The more I look at the screenshots from Vista, the more I dislike it.
I'm gonna stick to Win2K3 Server til EOL (and after that it'll be ReactOS).
Man... look at it! A lot of graphical bloat but the taskbar still hasn't really been improved.
Another bloated eye candy desktop from MS. I'm still waiting for following basic features:
1) Proper drag'n'drop support throughout the system.
- Drag'n'drop themes on your windows - and it'll change theme
- Drag'n'drop colors on your windows - and it'll change color
- Drag'n'drop fonts on your windows - and it'll change the font
- Drag'n'drop support here, there and everywhere!
2) Proper scaling functionality. Even standard dialogues in Windows does not scale well. Some dialogues does, and some doesn't. That's annoying. Gnome works much better here (but Gnome is rather jerky in it's movements).
3) My Template Folder! I want it! I want it! I want it! Just like OS/2 had it 13 years ago.
4) Proper support for transparent background for Icon Text on the Desktop (doesn't work for me in Win2K3 Server - unless you choose to have shadows under your text - and I don't - so it's not proper support.)
5) Option for using alternate Visual Styles besides those from MS incl. a VS-checker.
6) Enhanced printing support. Print Manager must handle Document Plugins, so you won't have to start applications to print. If you drag'n'drop a file to the printer icon it will start the associated application in order to print the document. That's very oldfashioned and right out stupid.
7) Lower memory & harddisk usage
8) Better scheduling (much better).
9) During installation it must be possible to decide what to install and not to install (as you could with NT4, but not with Win2K, XP and 2K3).
10) Proper language selector, like it's known from *nixes. One system wide environment variable to choose language.
11) Easy access to language resources, so you can translate untranslated applications.
12) And a lot more... I'll leave no.12 to you 
Member since:---
"Another bloated eye candy desktop from MS. I'm still waiting for following basic features: "
Hmmm, considering bits are weightless and a lot of "eyecandy" can be turned off/turned down. This complaint seems rather odd. By the above I guess Apples "bouncing icons" are "bloated eye candy"? Lets devote that GPU to something else. Like say PI to the N-th place.
Member since:2005-10-02
Bits AREN'T weightless. Not in an abstract way of thinking.
312 MByte weighs a lot more than 22 Mbyte, that's easy to understand.
It takes longer time to download a big file than a small file, so of course bits have a "weight".
Anyway, my complaint is meant to "visualize" the problem with MS (and to certain amount also KDE and Gnome). Too much eye candy and too little functionality (in my mind).
And yes... bouncing icons are bloat in my mind. Even animations are bloat, like when you're emptying the trash can. Waste waste waste of CPU cycles and memory (100 Kbyte saved is 100 Kbyte gained - 1 CPU cycle saved is one CPU cycle gained).
I like my desktop to follow KISS. I understand and accept if the rest of you don't, and I can see the idea of visual styles. I'd like my windows to look like NeXT. Unfortunately I can't, without hacking binaries (which I'm not going to).
Basically: I consider functionality to be a lot more important than the look of it. I know I'm probably the only one to have that opinion
Member since:---
Member since:2005-10-02
Idle time for my cpu is pretty limited
Besides that, Windows has a poor scheduler. It doesn't handle heavy loads too well. Which I can see several times every day. Even Win2K3 seems somewhat sluggish to me (and Win2K3 is quite fast as it is).
A CPU cycle saved in one place means, I have another CPU cycle to use somewhere else where it really matters.
In danish we have a saying: "Mange bække små, gør en stor å" whichs translates pretty much to "every little helps". That's why a CPU cycle saved is a CPU cycle gained.
But yes, I'm probably alone with this view, and a gained CPU cycle means a task takes smaller time, and we all know: Time is Money.
So yes... In a sense I get paid for "idle" CPU time. But then, we all do
Member since:2005-10-02
Idle time for my cpu is pretty limited
Besides that, Windows has a poor scheduler. It doesn't handle heavy loads too well. Which I can see several times every day. Even Win2K3 seems somewhat sluggish to me (and Win2K3 is quite fast as it is).
A CPU cycle saved in one place means, I have another CPU cycle to use somewhere else where it really matters.
In danish we have a saying: "Mange bække små, gør en stor å" whichs translates pretty much to "every little helps". That's why a CPU cycle saved is a CPU cycle gained.
But yes, I'm probably alone with this view, and a gained CPU cycle means a task takes smaller time, and we all know: Time is Money.
So yes... In a sense I get paid for "idle" CPU time. But then, we all do
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-10-02
The thing is, today computers are much more powerful than most users could possibly ever use.
No they aren't. Not when applications are growing bigger and bigger, effectively ruining the possible gain by newer hardware. Normal applications are pretty much as slow today as they were 8 years ago.
So the CPU and/or the GPU is idle anyway.
Well, idle time is a pretty misunderstood item. Especially on a single CPU system. And that's even more true when the OS (read: Windows - all versions) has a poor scheduler.
MS ought to spend less time on eye candy and more time on optimizing and adding basic functionality still missing after almost 25 years of development.
Member since:---
"No they aren't. Not when applications are growing bigger and bigger, effectively ruining the possible gain by newer hardware. Normal applications are pretty much as slow today as they were 8 years ago. "
Apples to Oranges. The apps of yesteryear aren't the same apps of today, and the reason for that is people are doing more things with their computer. Before there was this horsepower. The average consumer couldn't edit home videos. The home user didn't have a music studio in a box. No software DVD players. Even for the things that we could do in the past, we're expecting more. Documents are bigger. Pictures have better color and resolution. Arguing about "bloat" , and pining for the "good old days", is putting computers and their users into a time warp.
Member since:2005-10-02
Apples to Oranges. The apps of yesteryear aren't the same apps of today, and the reason for that is people are doing more things with their computer.
Yes. You're comparing apples to oranges, Mr.Noname. I wan't talking about doing more, but doing the same. It's hard to do more, when the apps grow larger for no reason, like office suites. But of course editing a video takes some resources, and I expect that, just like it takes some resources editing a 29.7*21 cm image in 2400 DPI with 48 bit colors. But that has nothing to do with the application itself!
There's a difference between using a well written application to edit videos and a badly written video editor. The well written editor loads fast, use few resources for itself, and are stable. The badly written use a lot of resources for the same functions, loads slowly and is unstable. That's my complaint. Applications are using to many resources to do the same as they did before. However, I'm perfectly aware that we're using the horsepower for larger tasks. I would expect that. The problem is that the tools are growing without adding any functionality to support this growth. You still haven't told me what functionality the eye candy gives, nor told me why OS'es and applications need more resources for themself despite the fact that they do not give more functionality at startup time (or later for that matter).
Before there was this horsepower. The average consumer couldn't edit home videos. The home user didn't have a music studio in a box. No software DVD players. Even for the things that we could do in the past, we're expecting more. Documents are bigger. Pictures have better color and resolution.
That's true to the extent the extra resources aren't being abused by the applications and OS expected to solve these tasks. You are getting confused. I never! said anything about the tasks applications were meant to fulfil. I said they were bloated (eg. too much eye candy - too little functionality - especially the OS).
However, for me there's little difference. I'm still using the same high resolution I did 7 years ago, but of course I can use larger pictures faster. But I could do it even faster if the apps weren't bloated.
The fact I'm editing larger pictures/movies/documents does not mean the application and/or OS should be slow . Find some functionality which has been added to applications/OS the last 7 years and makes the tenfold increase in resource usage reasonable.
A DVD-player is something which requires 500 Kbyte on harddrive and max. 1 MByte in ram (the video NOT included! <-- mark that!) ... there's no need for 25 MByte DVD-player which takes up 50 Mbyte ram with the same functionality and look as the first mentioned player - just slower.
Arguing about "bloat" , and pining for the "good old days", is putting computers and their users into a time warp.
Actually we are in a reverse time warp. We get faster and faster computers, but can do pretty much the same as before, because the applications and the OS is abusing the resources instead of having a minimal footprint.
Smaller and faster applications and OS'es with minimal footprint leaves more resources to the tasks they must solve, but cannot solve due to the applications and OS'es being badly written.
Most applications are approx. 10 times bigger than they ought to be considering the functionality. Look at Visio2003. It takes up the space for 8 OS'es with the same functionality as Win2K3 Server.
You would know this if you had knowledge about the way computers work. But you haven't got a clue, do you?
Member since:2005-09-12
"100 Kbyte saved is 100 Kbyte gained - 1 CPU cycle saved is one CPU cycle gained"
I don't know which decade you are living in. honestly the time to tweak your software to save every bit and byte is gone. Now even a basic computer comes with 512 MB RAM and 40 GB harddisk. My computer at home is 1.7 GHz with 256 MB RAM which runs WinXP and Redhat. I have never run my CPU 100 % except when i do video editing, which probably is done once in 3 months. The remaining time the system just sits there doing everything i throw at it, and never going above 20%. Now the remaining 80 % is more like air liner ticket. Thats gone for ever. I don't know what you aim to achive by saving 1 CPU Cycle.. come on...
Member since:2005-10-02
Aaahh.. come on.. read what I'm actually writing instead of putting words in my mouth.
The mantra "100 Kbyte saved is 100 Kbyte gained - 1 CPU cycle saved is one CPU cycle gained" doesn't mean that you should handtweak your application to the extreme. It means what it says. The less resources an application uses for itself, the more I have for the task the application in expected to solve.
I NEVER claimed that you should handtweak applications to save every bit and byte! Only stated that saved resources are gained resources. And this is in regard to bloated application wasting time on fancy graphics rather than solving the actual task.
Of course there is a balance to reach between getting the application finished and out of the door, and optimizing the application.
The double question is: Do we want to use resources on eye candy OR use resources on solving the tasks? I vote for the second option.
FYI: My system is very often running above 20% and I can really feel it (on Windows). I could do a lot more if applications and OS swallowed less resources (this is also true on GNU/Linux - however, on GNU/Linux developers tend to be more observant of this issue).
Next time read what people ACTUALLY write, instead of putting words in their mouths!
Member since:
2005-10-10
It does have a more professional look than KDE/Gnome.
I mean, people carry on about linux having all that Vista is going to offer, but I still can't change the colour of my task bar in Gnome without puking because some of it is coloured and some of it isn't and then I can't change the text color on it, so dark colours are right out 
Not that I'm a real eyecandy nut, but I fail to see how linux offerings are more up to date than windows, could someone please explain that to me?
Member since:2005-09-12
Member since:---
"It does have a more professional look than KDE/Gnome. "but I still can't change the colour of my task bar *in Gnome*" (emphasis added)
let me try rephrasing that. "Although I like KDE/Gnome, I like windows better because Gnome sucks at something."
If changing the color of your taskbar is really important to you, perhaps you should be using the other big DE for Linux.
RE[2]: Although I don't like it
Member since:---
KDE Offers this feature doesn't it, oh and btw u can change the colour and transparency (i think) in Vista, KDE has had that for a while and you can apply a background image to scale the colour over, as well as plenty more features, i.e. multiple "Start" style list Menu's. Customisable Icons, better Icons (Higher rez) for the quick tray, ability to hide, resize taskbar so that it needent take the whole bottom of your screen. And thats not starting on the multiple clock interfaces, and the fact you can fit all kinds of widgits into it 
.
(Seriously do some homework here, if you want these features use KDE, if not, well don't complain, or go nag someone to put them in another desktop)
And were only talking about one little area of the dektop here, KDE is themeable and the instructions on how to make/alter themes is readily available.
(None of that MS Cra* that XP isn't officialy themable apart from the themes they release)
Sorry If I flamed a bit here, didn't mean to offend...
Member since:
---
Member since:
2005-07-22
Member since:2005-08-27
>except that the article goes on to say that Expose
>is still better.
The problem with what they said and what you use as troll bait is that the Os isn't nearly finished yet (Not even in full release yet) and that maybe an option that you can change and even if it isn't built in you can add it in yourself. Also that is an opinion. I have seen some impressive shots with vista already working with third party apps to make this go wild. Remember, these windows are 3D meshes, so you can do any kind of alpha transparency you want.
A lot of time people are trolls like you and then there are people who are dumb. Then there are people who are both and like to spread misinformation.
Member since:---
I'm *assuming* that you are actually running a copy of VISTA and judging font quality therefore. Instead of judging quality by looking at screenshots.
--
"In the meantime, a new Vista build has been leaked to the internet."
I guess someone likes MS enough to leak their software all over the Internet.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
I usually don't log in on a public computer, but I have strong feelings about this, and I want to be recognized as having posted this, even if it pisses people off. I REALLY REALLY hope that the Aero experience Microsoft has kept under wraps is better than this. We'll have to wait for beta 2 to see what is in store graphically. I usually hold back from commenting on beta software, but Vista keeps getting uglier and uglier. I mean, this is godawful. It's not even like they're dolling up a bad interface. Vista throws out all of the rules on consistency, sensible usage of screen space, and long-term usability of a theme, replacing them with something that looks like a bad theme from wincustomize. I can't imagine looking at this for more than 5 minutes without my head swimming in the morass of pointless gradients, jarringly ugly icons, and unreadable text (because it is on a translucent background where the levels of translucency decrease as you approach the text.)
Now, I have historically found Microsoft products unpalatable, inconsistent, and generally displeasing. In my other comments on OSNews, I try to focus on the positive side of things, focusing on the improvements Microsoft has made to their products. XP is highly usable with the classic theme, though it has many warts, but with Vista, it looks like they threw out all of their work in the name of flashy graphics. I'd comment more, but I'm in a computer lab here at 73h un1v3r517y, and a class is starting.
until then,
peace on earth and goodwill toward men
Charles
Member since:
---
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
That looks real ugly, really. Almost as bad as the standard theme in KDE (I love KDE, but the default theme sux0rs). Green and black!? And those icons? And why does WMP and MSN still have those ugly themes?
I used to like the Window borders, but they got boring pretty fast...
IMO, it's almost as ugly as Luna, wich is a shame as the underlying things seems quite solid. I hope that MS hires people with som artistic skills (they certainly have the money for it) and that Vista is released with a clean and professional theme.
Member since:
---
here is download page: http://windows.czweb.org/show_article.php?id_article=99
Member since:
---
The fact that there's even a debate between Linux desktops and Vista speaks volumes. MS has had years to work on it with the largest team, and they still aren't able to blow either OS X or KDE/Gnome out of the water. Not very impressive for the time and money they put into it. Not very impressive for a company that goddamn big.
Member since:2005-09-12
Blow OSX or KDE/Gnome. ... which planet are you living on ? OSX sure... KDE/Gnome.. both are just apeing XP as much as possible. remember atleast 20 % normal people need to use KDE/Gnome before you can say they blow windows. Wake me up when uncles and aunts of this world likes KDE/Gnome
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:
2005-07-08
For better or worse (for MS), Vista is a departure from the look and feel of the Windows of yesteryear. In addition, there are substantial departures in usage models, workflows, task orientation, whatever you want to call it. It looks different and works differently.
The largest segment of the US market bought their first PC in the Win95/98 era. They have upgraded their PCs at least once, maybe twice, each time resulting in faster machine that has a more complete solution to the fat client problem.
When they buy their next PC, with Vista, they will, for the first time, notice some big changes in the operating system. Maybe it's a step forward, maybe it's not. But is it what the customer wants?
I'm not the average computer user, but I spent 2 years in high school selling computers at Sears, so I'm familiar with their general outlook. These people are not concerned with translucency or 3D effects. They are concerned about how quickly their computer will become obsolete and how secure they are against "hackers."
I believe that MS got sucked into competing with Apple on eye-candy because the power-user/enthusiast segment of the userbase is much more vocal than the average user. I believe that as Longhorn became long-overdue, they felt compelled to at least deliver their UI sugar, if very little else. I believe that MS planned to deliver much of their security features by leaning on hardware vendors, and much to their dismay, the hardware people dragged their feet.
Bottom line, most users want their familiar Windows experience with better performance/stability and vastly improved security. MS wants to push its grand vision of desktop look-and-feel on its enormous userbase, without any indication that its volume market segment is seeing the same vision.
Will they succeed? Of course!! But how long can this company innovate and drive 95% of the desktop market? Their decisions might not affect Vista sales, but they have broad implication on their next release.
Member since:
2005-07-06
..with a previous post. I doubt we've seen what Vista will look like at all. I think what we've seen so far are examples of the effects that'll be available with the final gui, but that's all. The glassy borders and see-through taskbar are just a teaser of what will be possible. It won't look anything like this....please...
