Microsoft operating system (Vista)
- Thread starter uknorthboy
- Start date
Soldato
i used Windows ME for years, infact over 3 years into XP's life, i was still using Windows ME... Stable and fast cos it wasnt full of bloat...Amp34 said:Great idea by microsoft, release a tragic OS that doesnt work (ME) then release a totally new working version soon after (XP). Means the only option for people who recently bought ME is to get XP as they cant stand the stability issues etc... That way microsoft get the money for both!(This happened to me)
My mum and dads pc had WinME installed for 4years..... granted by the end of the 4th year it was pretty dam unstable.
NathanE said:And yes it does matter. As Otacon has explained... people often don't realise how good something is until you give it to them. The Vista desktop is going to feel incredibly smooth, poised and just generally well engineered. The Windows desktop right now, while it is often praised as being the best desktop OS, is nothing like the level quality that will be visible in Vista. All you have to do is some intense dragging of windows and you can start to see the flaws in the current system.
Also remember that a GPU is, effectively, another processor. So it increases concurrency in the system as a whole. Windows is no longer "tied up" with the boring repetitive task of rendering windows. It can just dispatch the job to the GPU and then wait for it to be done before thinking about what to do next. In the meantime while it is waiting for the finished job from the GPU it can use the CPU(s) on other tasks, like dispatching threads.
Once people have played with a Vista desktop they won't want to go back
Hmm. I am not convinced - why? Because XP's desktop / explorer is already as snappy as it could be. Everything happens instantly. You can drag large windows full of thumbnails or whatever, and it is fast and smooth. If we were still using 486 processors then maybe offloading this task onto the GPU would be something to get excited about but with modern P4s and A64s it's totally moot.
Also everything I've seen about the Vista GUI is a backwards step: worse toolbar buttons; worse Start menu (what is wrong with the current one exactly? I like having my most often-used programs on the left, and all of my programs are on the 'all programs' menu in alphabetical order - but this needed 'fixing' apparently?); and the font for the titlebar is small and harder to read. Having used the Windowblinds 5 mock-up of Vista for a few months (including when WB5 was in beta) I just went back to XP's look and it is easier on the eye IMO.
dirtydog said:
While I appreciate what your saying dirtydog, the simple fact is that if everyone thought like you then we would all still be using Windows '95'. Having the GUI rendered by the GPU opens up a whole world of potential. Most of which won't be realised until long after Vista's launch. In fact I would go so far to say that Vista is merely scratching the surface. But it is a neccessary step.
As has been pointed out to you, if you like the archaic old style desktop then you can by all means turn off the new GUI. But you couldn't be more wrong when you refer to Vista's new GUI as being a backwards step. Would I be right in assuming that before XP was released you had very similar feelings with regards to XP's GUI and complained because the 95/98 style interface was "good enough"?
As for your point about you having used WB5 to give you the Vista GUI... Well having something look like a GUI is completely different from actually using the real thing. While it may look similar, none of the functionality and improvements of the new GUI are actually there. It's a completely different kettle of fish.
Last edited:
GordyR said:
My point about WB5 is I don't like the look of it - eg. titlebar text being harder to read due to the smaller size etc.
No, I most certainly did not criticise XP's look for being different to 95/98. Why? Because it isn't different is it - the basic look, eg. of the toolbar buttons, is exactly the same in XP as it is in 95. It doesn't have tiny back/forward buttons, and a silly tiny combined stop/refresh/go button. IE7's look is even more ridiculous - unlike IE6 which IMO cannot be improved upon re toolbar positioning (very similar to the default Firefox look too) but they have totally ruined it. Plus the worst sin of all, the new explorer has no 'up' button, something which all previous versions of Windows had - a large backwards step.
Permabanned
Just checked the cpu usage when moving a window and for anyone who cant be bothered to try it themselves :
Theres nothing else that significantly affects the cpu usage open and that was taken while franticaly moving the explorer window.
Theres nothing else that significantly affects the cpu usage open and that was taken while franticaly moving the explorer window.
dirtydog said:
I'm wondering if the Vista skin you were using on WB5 was based on an older build of Vista. The December CTP build has a lot of asthetic differences from the previous builds. You said yourself that you used a Vista skin for "a couple of months" therefore I assume it was based on an older look. Having toyed briefly with the December CTP build (Not obtained illegally before anyone asks) I can say that asthetically it is light years ahead of XP, in just about every concievable way.
dirtydog said:
I for one fully welcome the change. XP's toolbars look archaic to me. When web content becomes "prettier" than the actual GUI you are viewing it in you know something is amiss. I have a powerful PC, why not use it?
dirtydog said:
It's funny because the points you hate, i love. I am quite confident that if and when you have the final version of Vista/IE 7 in your hands you will be pleasantly surprised. Despite what many think, Microsoft are not stupid. They spend millions on usability testing and looking back throughout history, almost every significant GUI change they have made, although being criticised heavily at first, has ended up being adopted and appreciated in retrospect.
No I've seen the screenshots of the latest release and it is the same as the WB skin I used. Also I have used a recent build myself in person and I hate the lack of an up button and the new tiny toolbar buttons which you can't choose to have text underneath etc. as I prefer - basically so the buttons are bigger and easier to hit without it being fiddly. That's one of the reasons I hate OS X's interface - tiny fiddly buttons in Finder and Safari. Ugh.
We'll see TBH if Vista final is like the latest betas then I may stick with XP and I never thought I'd say that.
I *want* to be excited about Vista and I am ready to get it - but as of now I see no reason to. Perhaps the final version will give me that reason. I'm not optimistic though.
TBH if Vista final is like the latest betas then I may stick with XP and I never thought I'd say that.I *want* to be excited about Vista and I am ready to get it - but as of now I see no reason to. Perhaps the final version will give me that reason. I'm not optimistic though.
Soldato
toy_soldier said:
Associate
I wish my work place would upgrade..... we still have 5000 machines all NT4 
Soldato
I was thinking of some kind of emulation. I know you just can't use a 32bit driver on a 64bit system but there must be some sort of emulation possible. As I said it doesn't matter if it works well (after all stuff like graphics cards will have plenty of 64bit support) as long as the hardware is useable.Otacon said: