[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yeah, sorry, the video is only 8 fps. The free software I'm using doesn't record with a high frame rate. It's perfectly smooth on the MacBook in real life. Is there any other Windows software that I can use that doesn't require to pay $$$? I suppose I could just use a camcorder to capture the smoothness if anyone is interested.

And yes, Flip 3D is completely useless.

I could have sworn that the Longhorn beta (alpha?) had a window feature very similar to Expose. All the windows would be shrunk to 256x256 icons and displayed on the desktop.

[Eug Wanker]

ALT-TAB gives you shrunk windows that are updated in real time like Exposé. So, it's an improvement on ALT-TAB in XP (or OPTION-TAB in OS X), but it's still nowhere near as nice as Exposé.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

ALT-TAB gives you shrunk windows that are updated in real time like Exposé. So, it's an improvement on ALT-TAB in XP (or OPTION-TAB in OS X), but it's still nowhere near as nice as Exposé.

You mean command (apple) - tab right? Cause option tab isn't doing anything for me...

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

You mean command (apple) - tab right? Cause option tab isn't doing anything for me...

Yeah, in OS X I mean Command-TAB, sorry. It's ALT-TAB in Windows.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Did you guys ever get that OS8 copland walkthough CD from apple? I used to drool over the fact that I could change themes and have those helpful assistants.

I still have it somewhere. Runs fine in Classic

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Video: MacBook running Windows Vista with Aero Glass (960x540 Quicktime H.264)

(Check my sig if you want a smaller version of the video.)

Since people complained this was jerky, here is a short 30 fps version (but captured using a camcorder):

640x480p 30 fps H.264

[Skywalkers new Hand]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Since people complained this was jerky, here is a short 30 fps version (but captured using a camcorder):

640x480p 30 fps H.264

Alright it looks pretty flashy but at the same time ugly. Like a hippo in a tutu.



Anywho, apple better make 10.5 more glitzy.

[krillbee]

they should have just copied expose exactly.

or would they have gotten in trouble for that?

[Madrag]

that flip 3d is really a poor attempt of having something like exposé...
What happens if you don't have a mouse whell?

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by Madrag

that flip 3d is really a poor attempt of having something like exposé...
What happens if you don't have a mouse whell?

When you don't have a mouse wheel you use the arrow keys on the keyboard

[ryaxnb]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yeah, in OS X I mean Command-TAB, sorry. It's ALT-TAB in Windows.

Food for thought: Command-Tab in Mac os X cycles through the Applications, not windows. Which is better? I would say Alt-tab, but in OS X Control-F4 cycles through all open windows, and Command-` cycles through the current application's windows. More choices!

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb

Food for thought: Command-Tab in Mac os X cycles through the Applications, not windows. Which is better? I would say Alt-tab, but in OS X Control-F4 cycles through all open windows, and Command-` cycles through the current application's windows. More choices!

I think it's really easy to command-tab to the right application, then move my finger up one key to the ` and choose the right window if it's not already selected.

[Dakar]

I never knew that about control F4. Too bad the command is anything but ergonomic.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I never knew that about control F4. Too bad the command is anything but ergonomic.

There's no way to do it with the left hand without contorting it badly.

[Dakar]

Too bad they didn't make it option tide or even control tilde would have been passable.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb

Food for thought: Command-Tab in Mac os X cycles through the Applications, not windows. Which is better? I would say Alt-tab, but in OS X Control-F4 cycles through all open windows, and Command-` cycles through the current application's windows. More choices!

Want one more choice? Go to Keyboard Shortcuts in System Preferences and set "move focus to the active window or the next window" to control-tilde. Now you can quickly flip through all windows as easily as command-tab.

Or just get "Witch," and set it to something like option-tab.

[Lateralus]

I'm running Beta 2 on my PC. I'm mildly impressed with it. Though it's choppy as hell, which is pretty surprising given the specs of my rig;

Dual-Core Pentium with 4MBs of L2 at 3.75GHz.
2GBs of DDR2 667 RAM.
ATi Radeon X1600 256MB.

I'm sure that it'll be far more usable by launch though, whenever that is...

[olePigeon]

Control-F2 and Control-F3 let you navigate the application menus and the dock respectively via your keyboard.

[Dakar]

Vista is more and more sounding like a vehicle to force people to upgrade their PCs.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

I'm running Beta 2 on my PC. I'm mildly impressed with it. Though it's choppy as hell, which is pretty surprising given the specs of my rig;

Dual-Core Pentium with 4MBs of L2 at 3.75GHz.
2GBs of DDR2 667 RAM.
ATi Radeon X1600 256MB.

I'm sure that it'll be far more usable by launch though, whenever that is...

It's choppy on this kind of hardware?!?!

[Lateralus]

It's nice and smooth so long as you don't do anything beyond click around the OS. As soon as you start trying to actually do anything, like run Update and Internet Explorer at the same time, it gets choppy and laggy.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Vista is more and more sounding like a vehicle to force people to upgrade their PCs.

Or continue using what they currently are using.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Or continue using what they currently are using.

Either way it ironic that a product that offers so many 'options' is essentially limiting the consumer to two.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

It's nice and smooth so long as you don't do anything beyond click around the OS. As soon as you start trying to actually do anything, like run Update and Internet Explorer at the same time, it gets choppy and laggy.

My MacBook usually doesn't seem to lag like that when running IE.

Mind you, maybe our thresholds are just different.

[seanc]

And why the hell are you using IE? I can't stand it, greatest way to infest your pc with spyware.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by seanc

And why the hell are you using IE? I can't stand it, greatest way to infest your pc with spyware.

I'm more than well aware of the caveats of IE, thank you. But Vista has yet to become the virus den that Windows XP has and IE 7 is still in Beta and really isn't that bad either.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by seanc

And why the hell are you using IE? I can't stand it, greatest way to infest your pc with spyware.

Maybe he hasn't tried FireFox yet in Vista. (or maybe it doesn't work?)

This is what I wanna know: Ever since Windows came out, all the way to XP, it's impossible to play a music cd AND do a processor intensive task (like play a game.) The stupid music hiccups and studders.

Did they finally fix that in Vista?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

It's choppy on this kind of hardware?!?!

It shouldn't be. He must be having driver issues. On my single core P4 with 1.5 gigs of Ram and a Radeon X700 it runs fine. Not 60fps, but definitely snappy.

[seanc]

Sorry for insulting your intelligence, I just despise IE. Firefox along with most other things work fine in Vista. AVG doesn't work but Google found me an alternative.

I think playing music works fine while playing a game in XP. I'm 99% sure my friend has iTunes running while also running Skype and Unreal Tournament.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Maybe he hasn't tried FireFox yet in Vista. (or maybe it doesn't work?)

Firefox works fine in Vista. However, IE 7 is definitely nicer than IE 6.

This is what I wanna know: Ever since Windows came out, all the way to XP, it's impossible to play a music cd AND do a processor intensive task (like play a game.) The stupid music hiccups and studders.

Did they finally fix that in Vista?

I could do that in Win 2000 on a PIII. Perhaps it's your drive/drivers?

I haven't tried that in Vista though. I'll try loading UT2003 to see if it works. Mind you I could never get UT2003 working under XP on my MacBook, so I'm not optimistic.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by goMac

It shouldn't be. He must be having driver issues. On my single core P4 with 1.5 gigs of Ram and a Radeon X700 it runs fine. Not 60fps, but definitely snappy.

It's probably subjective. I'm pretty picky about the speed of an OS.

As far as I can tell, I'm good on drivers. I've downloaded all of the Vista hardware drivers that are available from the various manufacturers. Beyond that, my hardware setup is fairly basic and the Windows supplied drivers more than suffice.

Originally Posted by seanc

Sorry for insulting your intelligence, I just despise IE. Firefox along with most other things work fine in Vista. AVG doesn't work but Google found me an alternative.

No prob.

I usually wont even touch IE either but I'm giving MS the benefit of the doubt with 7. It hasn't pissed me off yet.

[Eug Wanker]

Well, FWIW, Vista on my MacBook (2 GB) feels much faster than OS X 10.4 Tiger on my iBook 1.33 (1.0 GB).

OS X 10.4 Tiger on my MacBook feels the fastest though.

[seanc]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

I'm giving MS the benefit of the doubt with 7. It hasn't pissed me off yet.

Fair point. It does work, but the results of the Acid 2 Test are hideous.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by seanc

Fair point. It does work, but the results of the Acid 2 Test are hideous.

I find it curious that none of the video links on the Quicktime HD Gallery site work at all in IE 7.

Mind you it's moot, since the videos don't work anyway in Quicktime, even using Firefox. (The links at least will load from Firefox, but you get a blank screen in the QT window.)

[seanc]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Well, FWIW, Vista on my MacBook (2 GB) feels faster than OS X 10.4 Tiger on my iBook 1.33 (1.0 GB).

OS X 10.4 Tiger on my MacBook feels the fastest though.

You're making me jealous. I'll hopefully buy a Core Solo Mini soon but I've bought a cheap dual core pc to tide me over until then, since it'll play games better than my current pc and it doesn't use archaic expensive sdram either.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Either way it ironic that a product that offers so many 'options' is essentially limiting the consumer to two.

To be fair... you can probably run Vista on your current system with all the bells and whistles turned off.

[seanc]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

To be fair... you can probably run Vista on your current system with all the bells and whistles turned off.

You can, I am, but it's horribly slow. If you have to turn all the bells and whistles off to use it, what's the point? The only reason I upgraded to XP was because Microsoft make you run the latest OS to use their latest programs.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

To be fair... you can probably run Vista on your current system with all the bells and whistles turned off.

Ah yes. I'm unfamiliar with what benefits you're gaining from Vista other than those bells & whistles, though.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I could do that in Win 2000 on a PIII. Perhaps it's your drive/drivers?

I haven't tried that in Vista though. I'll try loading UT2003 to see if it works. Mind you I could never get UT2003 working under XP on my MacBook, so I'm not optimistic.

I've tried different computers from 95 to XP. All of them studder the music. I have seen CD-ROMs, though, that are also CD-Players and don't rely on Windows for playing the music. In that case, it works.

Just to make it clear, it's not while the program is running, it always happens when I launch an intensive application or minimize it to the task bar.

[seanc]

A bit off topic, but has anyone managed to download the 64 bit version of Vista? All i get is a 13.7mb file. The 32 bit version works fine.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by seanc

A bit off topic, but has anyone managed to download the 64 bit version of Vista?

*Raises hand*

Though in the midst of the rush to download Vista after MS made it public, I had to resort to a torrent to get it.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I've tried different computers from 95 to XP. All of them studder the music. I have seen CD-ROMs, though, that are also CD-Players and don't rely on Windows for playing the music. In that case, it works.

Just to make it clear, it's not while the program is running, it always happens when I launch an intensive application or minimize it to the task bar.

studder: No entries found. Did you mean?

shudder
studded
stutter

[seanc]

I've been torrenting mine for the last two days (it's a slow torrent). This morning I woke up to find Windows ME had crashed, I stupidly thought I could trust it to download a torrent and installed it on an old machine. Mine is 3.99GB in size but I thought it was meant to be bigger, BitTorrent seems to be unwilling to do anything with it.

Am i missing a hoop I need to jump through to get the 64 bit version from the MS website? I've tried Kubuntu, Windows and Mac OS along with Safari, Opera, Firefox and Konqueror and I can't get a file bigger than 13.7mb.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

It's probably subjective. I'm pretty picky about the speed of an OS.

As far as I can tell, I'm good on drivers. I've downloaded all of the Vista hardware drivers that are available from the various manufacturers. Beyond that, my hardware setup is fairly basic and the Windows supplied drivers more than suffice.

Well, it was definitely running at least 30 fps. I still don't have audio drivers. The XP ones work but they cause blue screens.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by seanc

I've been torrenting mine for the last two days (it's a slow torrent). This morning I woke up to find Windows ME had crashed, I stupidly thought I could trust it to download a torrent and installed it on an old machine. Mine is 3.99GB in size but I thought it was meant to be bigger, BitTorrent seems to be unwilling to do anything with it.

Am i missing a hoop I need to jump through to get the 64 bit version from the MS website? I've tried Kubuntu, Windows and Mac OS along with Safari, Opera, Firefox and Konqueror and I can't get a file bigger than 13.7mb.

I could only get the Akamai download manager working with IE on Windows. I wish that ActiveX wasn't required. Do you have a different version of Windows running other than ME?

[seanc]

Originally Posted by goMac

I could only get the Akamai download manager working with IE on Windows. I wish that ActiveX wasn't required. Do you have a different version of Windows running other than ME?

Indeed I do. 98, 2000 and I had the 32bit version of Vista installed but formatted just a few hours ago to install Kubuntu and to try and download the 64 bit version of Vista but thats also not working. IE with the download manager didn't work on 2000, still a 13.7mb file.

[DarwinX]

We're on I2 with Microsoft. I downloaded Vista 32-bit version in 20 minutes. I haven't had too much time to play, but it does look cool. I'm not yet overally sold on any of the functionality, and it truly is a drag on resources. Though I remind some of you to make sure the HD indexer isn't still running before you really start making judgements. It took quite a while on my test system. It found all my drivers, so I had no issues of the sort. 2.8 P4, 512 RAM, 7,200 RPM 80GB SATA HD. Again, Vista looks good but isn't impressing me with much else. I plan to try it on a Core Duo laptop sometime hopefully not too far off. Interesting thread, thought I'd add my 2 cents.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by DarwinX

We're on I2 with Microsoft. I downloaded Vista 32-bit version in 20 minutes. I haven't had too much time to play, but it does look cool. I'm not yet overally sold on any of the functionality, and it truly is a drag on resources. Though I remind some of you to make sure the HD indexer isn't still running before you really start making judgements. It took quite a while on my test system. It found all my drivers, so I had no issues of the sort. 2.8 P4, 512 RAM, 7,200 RPM 80GB SATA HD. Again, Vista looks good but isn't impressing me with much else. I plan to try it on a Core Duo laptop sometime hopefully not too far off. Interesting thread, thought I'd add my 2 cents.

Actually, I don't even think it looks that good. It looks better than XP, but that's not saying much. From a usability standpoint though, I'm not sure Vista is a step up. It seems disorganized.

I'm gonna actually try to use it consistently though, for my one app I need to use in Windows. Perhaps it's just because I'm not used to it. It's certainly not intuitive IMO though.

[seanc]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

It's certainly not intuitive IMO though.

It's certainly not. Just take the control panel or start menu as an example, both ridiculous.

[Kerrigan]

Ya the more I use it the more I hate the UI. Turning off the computer requires me to hit start, and then to resist the urge to click the "power" icon b/c that is actually a sleep button. Then I have to click a tiny arrow next to a lock (??) and choose "Shut Down" from one of 7 menu options.

I thought that the removal of the menu bar in the file browser and IE was clever at first, and I figured that eventually it would become second nature. Instead, It's just a pain. The little task buttons everywhere make the window far too cluttered.

Control panel is awful, like the guy above me said.

As always, Windows Media Player is confusing and jumbled, full of reversed gradients and little expandable folders. A headache. And yet people praise it for being sleek and elegant haha.

I'm starting to do a 180 on my original opinions of vista just due to the cluttered, annoying UI.