Today, Microsoft released the first beta of Windows Vista. PC Mag reviews it. "After several years of waiting to see the successor to Windows XP, code-named Longhorn, we've finally gotten our hands on Beta 1 of what now will be called Windows Vista." They also have 40 screenshots. Elsewhere, MS has announced the official names for Avalon and Indigo.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
Member since:
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Thom_Holwerda said: "Have fun trying to run the latest Linux/KDE-GNOME distributions on five year old hardware."
The difference is that trying to install linux on old/obscure hardware is fun if you're enjoy programming or whatever; trying to install windows on old hardware is fun if you paying tech support fees. I think I know which of these is more likely to be the case!
(Actually, I'm not convinced either is really fun, but I think my point still stands.)
Member since:2005-07-27
Member since:
Member since:2005-07-06
Have fun trying to run the latest Linux/KDE-GNOME distributions on five year old hardware.
Puh-leaase! Linux is FAR better at supporting old hardware than Windows. The only thing you have to worry about is the memory. Most new distros want at least 96M of memory, but you can get them running on less. If you have at least 128M, you can install the very latest and greatest without any problems or concerns. I run Fedora Core 4 on my 6 six year-old ABit BP6 just fine. I have a 400MHz PII system that also runs FC4 just fine, and it's pushing ten years now.
Member since:1. You can't actually install this on hardware older than 5 years, have fun trying.
Have fun trying to run the latest Linux/KDE-GNOME distributions on five year old hardware.
Does a Intel Celeron 800 Mhz with counts as an five years old machine? If yes, then please count me in (And yes, I did have a lot of fun doing it...). Running KDE 3.4.1 almost as smooth as Windows XP on the same hardware.
But I wouldn´t try the same using GNOME, though. I have it installed and yes, it is usable, but I hardly call that a pleasing experience. All the other lightweight windowmanagers AND XFCE fly on this machine.
Member since:2005-07-09
Have fun trying to run the latest Linux/KDE-GNOME distributions on five year old hardware.
*yawn* done and done.
and no, i don't have to disable every little process or anything like that. it all runs smooth and efficient. i built my box to last and it's doing just that.
Member since:
Member since:2005-07-06
IPv6 is available in Windows XP (a dev version shipped with 2000). Vista's IP stack was rewritten and provides both v4 and v6 in one stack -- v6 is default.
Apple did not do this 5 years ago. Apple only shipped the framework for accelerated drawing and resolution independent UI with Tiger. These frameworks are only test versions and only developer accessible, however, so end-users still have no resolution independence, nor do they have accelerated drawing.
Windows has had the capability of allowing devs to create resolution-independent UI for years now. XP improved on this by allowing users more configuration options for it. Vista extends upon this further by providing APIs and tools that make this capability first-class and easy to adhere to.
The other points are just as unsubstantiated and incorrect, or subjective arguments.
For facts, check out:
The Windows Vista Developer Center
http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/
and
Windows Vista Advances for Developers
http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/about/
Member since:Ok this is a brutal response. I stopped reading because of credibility went out the window once OpenGL was mentioned. OpenGL? WTF?!@# obviously you don't know windows architecture.
DirectX is far superior to OpenGL when it comes to filters and effects and shaders. This is going to add a huge advantage to gui effects etc. Sure its just eyecandy but, it opens a whole new door for rendering that opengl on X just doesn't do. If they open the API to 3rd party render handling functions, that will be awesome!
Member since:2005-07-06
DirectX may be superior to OpenGL for certain tasks. It is not however enough for even the desktop that seems to be Microsoft's main intention for it currently, hence the extensions that have been added (WPF 1 is it?)
More significantly, it is not standardised in the same way, hence there are still no hardware devices to do the job that Microsoft wants done. If the architecture had been thought out in the way that OpenGL was, it's just possible that a current graphics card would be able to run the software that will be released in 6 months time. To me, that sounds more important than which has more features, as I don't actually have the money to buy a new card with every new game (or desktop) I purchase.
Member since:Please stop saying absolute non-sense. DirectX and OpenGL ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING when it comes to functionalities and, more often than not, speed.
IF DirectX is NOW superior in terms of performances to OpenGL then it's because Longhorn will have some built-in OpenGL breakage code (that could very well be true).
What exactly are you talking about with filters, effects and shaders? Far superior? DirectX has HLSL, OpenGL has GLSL and both API can use CG as well.
Also, what could possibly be worse than an extension system similar to the OpenGL one in DirectX? What kind of mess would come out of that? I hardly see the ARB and Microsoft ever agree on how an extension should be implemented...
Member since:
Member since:
For those of you who have not tried the bets yet, here's a simple breakdown of the real changes.
1. "Virtual Folders" are nothing more than symolic links to actual objects. The difference here is that MS never added support for symbolic linking in their OS,opting instead to use "Shortcuts".
2. The "User Account Protection" is only a feature that puts users into something like a superuser mode kinda like a chroot.
3. The device driver changes are nothing that shouldn't have been in Windows 98. When loading new device drivers, the OS doesn't use DMA or shared memory when loading, so if there is a problem, it won't BSOD your machine.
4. Priveledge settings are the same thing as they are in Novell's 10 year old NDS.
5. Their "implicit search" is nothing more than a wannabe of Beagle, but not quite the same as Spotlight.
So you see, there is nothing innovative in this at all. I was irate to see how many simple things they have done to this OS that make a big difference, but are totally stolen ideas. There is nothing here that you won't find properly implemented in any other OS. Even their "revolutionary" new UI is only a simple OpenGL accelerated GUI with new language to use it underneath. This was done by Apple nearly 5 years ago, although X.org hasn't quite caught up to this yet. Here are the actual issues with this beta:
1. You can't actually install this on hardware older than 5 years, have fun trying.
2. The service management is actually WORSE than in Windows XP, as they have (yet again) tried to simplify management, but in the course, making it more harder to use intuitively.
3. You can't disable a lot of the hold your hand BS that they've added, although I assume they'll be fixing this by the time the final product some out.
4. The new shell is terrible and even more verbose in usage than ksh.
5. They STILL have not properly implemented IP6
6. Their search utility does not seem to work with the kernel and is pretty slow. Also, they are very few configuration options for this new tool.
The only good thing I can actually say about an OS that has a devlopment period of nearly 6 years is, it is more stable. Wohopdeedoo.