Windows Vista - first impressions

unofficialy, I dont like windows vista, i think the GUI is clunky, cluttered and, uncustomisable. The only plus is that there is a windows classic view option.

Officialy, how do i get ahold of windows vista?

 

How can you call it uncustomisable? No doubt when it's released there'll be plenty of ways to change it to how you like, albeit through 3rd party apps I expect, but it is by no means an uncustomisable OS. You haven't tried it but you're slating the features?

<A88>

 

I can't conferm or deny that I have tryed it. what is with the extra bar on top that you cannot get rid of in classic view? and the tabbs in IE7 are in a stupid spot, evenen if IW didnt totaly suck i would still use firefox.

 

You have me on the feature complete part ( bit brain dead today i think), but surely it fails the definition of a beta in the first line of that wikipedia description

By all accounts the majority of the new features aren't in this release.
Still split hairs really

 

Surely if it takes external software to allow you to change anything but the basics, it isn't really customisable.

 

I liked the interface. I wish they had redone the start menu. Can't wait till this comes out to the market!

 

The constant apple 'big-ups' are getting annoying, but other than that a great intro of the new bits

 

Now really Mr. Harris, is it REALLY necessary to enforce your position on things in literally every review on this site with editor's remarks?

Interesting review, and a nice summary of basically everything to be heard about Vista thus far. I hope it gets intersting; its going to take more than a fancier GUI and wierd features to make me upgrade from 2000.

 

Well yes it is, because the files are still open to modification, you just need a decent bit of GUI software to know what you're doing. Who knows, they might offer skins through the OS, though it's unlikely. The fact is, you can get XP to look like practically anything, which is something I'm sure the OSX fanboys will have no comeback to (well, maybe "OSX just looks perfect)...

<A88>

 

Good job, kna. I understood where you were coming from. For a lot of this stuff, windows IS behind the curve a bit...and it's nice to see it catching up. The creation of 3d space for a desktop has incredible possibilities. And Wil, I'm going to join the bandwagon saying "Mac is nice and all, but come on..." We usually slap Froggy around for this kind of fanboy crap.

As for the interface, I'm very excited about a number of things. First of all, it's interface is designed in MARKUP, people. This is like Desktop out of XML, which I have been dreaming about. How can you say something is not flexible when it's markup?! Just because we don't fully know how to implement it yet does not mean it is inflexible.

I hate the bloody start bar. I think I mentioned that before. I hate the very design of the start bar. They should honestly consider taking a cue from the better-than-mac interface of ObjectDock.

The search feature rules, but I think they should drop the "rating" thing. Not every folder needs a rating. And I don't want my GUI to be my music player and everything else, so it has no reason to rate things in its own database. I like the keywords. A lot. The virtual folders, as mentioned, are a great idea (about damn time), but somewhat poorly implemented. Largely because it doesn't index properly, so you end up indexing each time you access the folder, which takes forever. It's like running access instead of SQL server, with waaay too many entries.

The entire thing feels a bit like web-design, which someone mentioned. This isn't a bad thing to me. In fact, I really like it, because like web design, I can have control over my layout and my interface (eventually). Web interfaces, because of their customizeablilty, have become some of the most intuitive and/or creative user interfaces I have seen. Feels just a touch flat because of that, though...so I can see how that may not be to everyone's taste. I hope that the markup gets powerful enough to truly allow me to *create* on my desktop and my windows...maybe implement a bit of 3d to it to remove that web-page-y look. I'd like to see it be able to develop into a true space, with depth instead of just a z-index. That would help, and it shouldn't be all that difficult.

The idea of a truly modular registry is something that should have been implemented ages ago. AGES. I never understood why they didn't. It's nice to see that they did now.

My prelim $0.02.

 

Course there is always linux , x.org are working on hardware acceleration and kde and gnome can be made to look like anything, out of the box

I don't know why people keep slating the mac referances, in a quick scan i count 4, two of them in relating to a new feature that has already been implemented before in an apple OS. One is used to describe the sort of UI improvements, and the last is a subjective comment.
Correct me if i'm wrong but this is the second most popular mainstream desktop OS, surely you would expect comparrisons. Firefox is mentioned twice in referance to IE7, where are the flames over that?

 

Come on guys, like kna said already he can write whatever he wants. Who are we to tell him how to write and what to write. If we don't like it we can just go read at THG.

As for Vista... I wanna find out what memory usage it has..? (someone asked that already earlier)

Let's be friends =) Maccer's Linuxers... and other... let's go play around with parental controls and see how much can we f*** up games... I mean if you can change the way blood looks and etc... it's pretty fun... Maybe even make UT look like Mario....

I think this Beta release should be called Sandbox (quite popular term these days)...
Cause we all play around in it... we can do anything but nothing really works well. Let's wait till Microsoft finishes what they started and let's hope to see another Bluescreen in Bill Gate's presentation...

Life is too amusing to be bitching in forums

 

x.org to be a threat need to pull their collective heads out of their collective arses and realise that 96.84% of users are using x.org locally, and make APIs acordingly not stupid sockets everywhere.

I had some arguement with someone about this before, he said his XP1800 could do 160,000 sockets a second, and what was i complaing about, as i explained it could do well over a million fast calls a second

Seriously guys, i like BT's view on a lot of reviews, but this one, is terrible.
Its not objective enough, i know you can write what you like, but BT has grown because you guys normally have such good quality. I know you didn't want to turn it into a sob story about WinFS and all the other exciting stuff been missing, and this OS been soo many years after XP. But it wasn't really enough of a look (and i know talking about the new markup, saftey in kernel mode, low downtime patching stuff dosen't do it for everyone).

 

Well he is bit-tech.net's Apple fanboy...



Either he'll take offence at it (not intended) or see the intended funny side...

 

Are you thinking about XFree86?
The whole reason that x.org was created was because XFree86 had their heads up their arses. There is a more open development process to x.org than there ever was for XFree86.

 

the API interface manner is still a hot topic. I really don't see why, with todays hardware for most users using a remote machine dosen't make sense (but it was an XFree86 person i was arguing with, x.org wasn't around then... and i say person, i think he might of checked the mailing list for them, but when the underlings are that..... this is going way Off topic!)

 

Yeh

*Topic course correction*
I spose however much any of us bash or praise it, we will all still install it and have a dam good play. After all it will be a new bit of kit.

 

I think this software is a GOD MODE like. LOL. Too much high on the requirements. BUt its cool!

anyway where i can get this Windows Vista?

 

can't seem to find any article about vista which isn't doused in apple fanboy comments.

 

Your local software store, Holiday 2006

<A88>