Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Vista Beta 2: impressive

Vista Beta 2: impressive (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Kerrigan  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
Which TiBook? 667? 800?
667. I still have that thing actually, and it runs 10.4 really well, so Apple deserves credit for that.

But I find it hard to forgive Apple for selling me a $4,000+ laptop which could barely resize windows and would lag whenever I would type anything.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
I'm going to say this once, and then I'm not going to repeat it again for the sack of this thread not turning into a flamefest like the Macbook thread did, but Vista's graphics are far superior to Mac OS X's, which is why the requirements are higher. That doesn't stop Microsoft from creating horrible UI's with their nice graphics engine.
I'm glad you pointed that out. Microsoft's windowing system could be a great implementation. The problem is that Microsoft is still thinking Windows 3 even though they have all this 3D stuff.

One example: The Application/Window switcher. Know what it does? It takes all your windows (which are stacked and obscuring each other) and rotates in 3D 45 degrees... stacked and obscuring each other. So instead of hunt and peck through windows in 2D, you get to do it in 3D.

The other thing, frosted windows. Why?! If it's transparent to let you see information behind it, then why frost the window so you can't see it? It's like the computer is teasing you now. "Hey! Look at me! There's something beneath my window... but I'm not gonna let you know if it's important or not! Haha!"

When it comes to actually implementing ideas in a good way ... Christ, preschoolers know design better with finger painting than Microsoft does with User Interfaces.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
production_coordinator
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan
I think a more accurate analogy would be:

MS: Give us $100 (or whatever) for Vista. The final product is responsive, compatible with almost everything from XP, and has an excellent graphics system.

Apple: Give us $100 for 10.0. It's slow as hell and your OS9 apps will be even slower so you won't be able to use them... but then you can give us another $100 for 10.2, and another $100 for 10.3 and now it's finally responsive and usable.

(yes I know the prices are different in reality)
Why do you keep trying to compare OS X 10.0 to Vista? From a technology standpoint, it sounds like you have no clue what you are talking about.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 07:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon
One example: The Application/Window switcher. Know what it does? It takes all your windows (which are stacked and obscuring each other) and rotates in 3D 45 degrees... stacked and obscuring each other. So instead of hunt and peck through windows in 2D, you get to do it in 3D.
This is a perfect example. IMO, interfaces should show the most information possible to a user at a given time. For example, Expose allows you to see all the windows on your machine at once. Flip3D sacrifices information for a cool 3D effect. In Flip3D you can only see the frontmost window in the stack, leaving you unable to see all the other windows you have open. It's graphically far above what OS X can do, but OS X is more functional. It would be very nice if OS X could get Expose looking better with a Vista like graphics engine, but at the end of the day Expose is more functional.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by production_coordinator
Why do you keep trying to compare OS X 10.0 to Vista? From a technology standpoint, it sounds like you have no clue what you are talking about.
Just FYI. Windows Vista will cost $450 for the "Ultimate" edition.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon
Just FYI. Windows Vista will cost $450 for the "Ultimate" edition.
Speaking of the Ultimate Edition, I hate the new Media Center. Hate hate hate.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 07:13 PM
 
It's just rather sad that OS X hacked to run on a standard PC recognizes more hardware by default than Vista currently does.... Without having to search for, or even point to drivers already included just not pre-activated.
     
snoopy199
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 07:21 PM
 
I just finished playing with Vista on my mini for the past few days and I'm underwhelmed.

The gui is clearly stolen from OSX. Microsoft did put some refinement of their own. For instance, they don't have the menu bar on the file explorer or IE. How do you say, save something in IE, or want to book mark it. I used to use the menu bar.

Vista is big and slow also, so aside from its unintuative interface, this is a beast. Perhaps because its only a beta, but clearly its sagging under its weight. While I may only have a mini, I did expect better performance.

Vista is basically trying to be 10.3 was and failed, never mind that we now have Tiger and no doubt we'll have Leopard.

I had hoped to see some clear improvements, but I am disapointed.

I know gomac is in love with vista, and others really dig it, but for me, its not worth the aggrevation. I wiped my mini's drive and reloaded OSX

I feel so dirty now
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by kmkkid
It's just rather sad that OS X hacked to run on a standard PC recognizes more hardware by default than Vista currently does.... Without having to search for, or even point to drivers already included just not pre-activated.
Actually, Vista installed on my machine only missing the sound drivers, because the Vista C-Media sound drivers aren't working yet. Vista included a WDM for my Radeon X700.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by darth-vader000
I know gomac is in love with vista, and others really dig it, but for me, its not worth the aggrevation. I wiped my mini's drive and reloaded OSX
I'm in love with it's graphics engine. Could care less about the rest, including the UI. It's like loving the Quake 3 engine but hating the Quake 3 game.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 07:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
Actually, Vista installed on my machine only missing the sound drivers, because the Vista C-Media sound drivers aren't working yet. Vista included a WDM for my Radeon X700.

Thats nice, OS X installed on my PC with all my hardware working 'out of the box' and it's not even meant to run on a Hewlett Packard.

Oh and when I installed Vista, I had to search for and install at least 6 various drivers.
     
::maroma::
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: PDX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 07:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan
But I find it hard to forgive Apple for selling me a $4,000+ laptop which could barely resize windows and would lag whenever I would type anything.
You find it hard to forgive Apple because there is nothing to forgive Apple for. You purchased that laptop, Apple didn't force you to do anything.
     
zmcgill
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Iowa State University
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 08:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by production_coordinator
Why do you keep trying to compare OS X 10.0 to Vista? From a technology standpoint, it sounds like you have no clue what you are talking about.
I agree. 10.2.8 was rock solid, some users on our network are still using it (we're getting them up to Tiger now, there are only a couple left).
And while it's true that Vista runs on current hardware better than X.1 ran on current (at the time) hardware, that's not a fair comparison. Going from XP -> Vista is NOT the same as OS 9 -> OS X. The changes in the GUI and requirements of OS X were so far and above those of OS 9 that some lagging was to be expected.
Again, I realize Vista's graphics engine is much better (the supposed 128MB VRAM requirement shows that) But I remember at the time a 16MB graphics card was needed for OS X's eye candy, and that's what the B&W G3's had, but not the iMacs.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 08:41 PM
 
Vista's Aero Glass is fully supported on 64 MB machines, as long as the screen isn't too big.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 10:25 PM
 
I really don't have anything nasty to say about Vista, other than: the frosty windows would drive me nuts. Imagine a background application working away, with its progress bars gleaming thru the active window. Very annoying.

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo
OSX 10.0 was horrible, the free upgrade to 10.1 was more than usable.
Once 10.1 came, I stopped booting into OS 9.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
Similarly, there are features in the developer versions of Tiger that have been left off in the actual release, because they aren't ready for prime time. Quartz 2D Extreme is the prime example.
Q2dE did ship, but was disabled by default. You can still activate it with the Quartz Debug application. The reasons are technical, but most users wouldn't experience performance improvements with Q2dE, depending on the applications they use. See: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/14
     
Kerrigan  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 10:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by ::maroma::
You find it hard to forgive Apple because there is nothing to forgive Apple for. You purchased that laptop, Apple didn't force you to do anything.
Apple isn't operating a bazar stall in medieval Turkey. This is the 21st century, you expect to get a good product when you pay $4,000.

Lesson learnt though. I took a good look at MacBooks with the intent to buy one, only to discover that Rosetta emulation is horrid. Apple really should make it clearer how slow many popular applications run on intel macs rather than lying about them being "4x faster".
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by kmkkid
Thats nice, OS X installed on my PC with all my hardware working 'out of the box' and it's not even meant to run on a Hewlett Packard.

Oh and when I installed Vista, I had to search for and install at least 6 various drivers.
OS X x86 doesn't have drivers for any non-Apple ATI or nVidia card. If I loaded OS X on my same PC I wouldn't have any graphics acceleration at all.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Brass
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 12:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan
I think a more accurate analogy would be:

MS: Give us $100 (or whatever) for Vista. The final product is responsive, compatible with almost everything from XP, and has an excellent graphics system.

Apple: Give us $100 for 10.0. It's slow as hell and your OS9 apps will be even slower so you won't be able to use them... but then you can give us another $100 for 10.2, and another $100 for 10.3 and now it's finally responsive and usable.

(yes I know the prices are different in reality)
Actually some of my OS 9 apps were much faster in Classic under OS X than in OS 9 native. Eg, I had a FileMaker Pro job that used to take all night to run in OS 9. In Classic under OS X (10.0), it only took about 3 hours.
     
Targon
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: a void where there should be ecstasy
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 01:15 AM
 
"lipstick on a pig" LMFAO ... funniest quote i've heard in a while...yeah thats good!!!
     
Targon
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: a void where there should be ecstasy
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 01:25 AM
 
"But Apple doesn't go around saying a feature will be in the next version of OS X in front of crowds of people only to have it disappear... or become so watered down that it's nothing more than a hack or .1 upgrade. [Not yelling at you... angry at the Microsoft hype machine]"

Quartz Extreme 2D ??
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 05:37 AM
 
When did Apple ever tell end users about Quartz 2D Extreme? If you want to talk about a feature they actually advertised and then pulled, Home on the iPod is what you are looking for.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 05:57 AM
 
Just a few comments. First of all, to compare Vista with 10.0 is a bit misleading. Vista has a lot of features OS X has had for a few years now. Obviously the experience will be vastly different on a 3+ GHz PC with the latest graphics card (to have really all bells and whistles of the GUI) compared to a computer (PC or Mac) that's six years old. OS X was a lot more demanding than Windows in terms of resources, but I think it has more than paid off. Apple has learnt that it shouldn't overuse effects, transparencies in particular. MS didn't seem to get the message and learn from Apple's example and put in the effects mainly as a technology demonstration.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
zmcgill
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Iowa State University
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 09:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Just a few comments. First of all, to compare Vista with 10.0 is a bit misleading. Vista has a lot of features OS X has had for a few years now. Obviously the experience will be vastly different on a 3+ GHz PC with the latest graphics card (to have really all bells and whistles of the GUI) compared to a computer (PC or Mac) that's six years old. OS X was a lot more demanding than Windows in terms of resources, but I think it has more than paid off.
Originally Posted by Gossamer 12 hours earlier
The difference is that Apple was making computers do this stuff with 300MHz and 6MB of VRAM. Vista gets multiple GHz and loads of VRAM. Of course it will be snappy. Try Vista on a 500MHz PIII and let's see how snappy it is. Even on my 1.7GHz/512MB/16MB VRAM Dell window drawing is slow.

Quite insightful.
     
Socially Awkward Solo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hanging on the wall at Jabba's Palace
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 11:34 AM
 
"It's almost impossible, when looking at Microsoft's Vista beta not to think about Apple and MacOS X."

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/index.php?p=616

"Laugh it up, fuzz ball!"
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 12:02 PM
 
I thought I'd add a link to Paul Thurrot … so much for progress.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan
...only to discover that Rosetta emulation is horrid.
Your opinion.

My mother noticed a definite SPEEDUP in the way PPC applications run on her Core Solo Mac Mini. And this was an upgrade from a 867 MHz G4.

And I would have no problems replacing my 1 GHz TiBook with a MacBook Pro today, if I had the money.
     
zmcgill
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Iowa State University
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 12:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Person Man
Your opinion.

My mother noticed a definite SPEEDUP in the way PPC applications run on her Core Solo Mac Mini. And this was an upgrade from a 867 MHz G4.

And I would have no problems replacing my 1 GHz TiBook with a MacBook Pro today, if I had the money.
Agreed, my 1.33 GHz iBook is showing its age.
     
seanc
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 12:44 PM
 
And in case Gossamer is still getting a headache from his CRTs refresh rate:

Desktop> Right Click > Personalize > Display Settings > Advanced Settings > Monitor Tab > Drop Down List.

I hate that stupid control panel and the start menu.
     
production_coordinator
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 12:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan
I took a good look at MacBooks with the intent to buy one, only to discover that Rosetta emulation is horrid. Apple really should make it clearer how slow many popular applications run on intel macs rather than lying about them being "4x faster".
Please...

Rosetta isn't horrid, it's not even bad or poor. For most people upgrading to a MacBook, they will STILL see a speed increase (even when the application is in emulation). There are exceptions, but the number of applications that aren't UB is shrinking daily. CS3 and Office are the big two... and they are being worked on... When they are released, will you still be saying the MacBook wasn't worth it?

Professionals shouldn't be using a MacBook if their software is in emulation unless there is a specific reason. Wait until CS3 and Office are native.

Also, office in emulation on a MacBook feels about the same on the iBook. You can feel a little difference in Photoshop... but AGAIN, I wouldn't consider it all that significant. It takes a little longer to launch the program, but after that, I couldn't tell much of a difference. I'm talking about normal use. The benchmarks can show a more significant difference because they are opening huge documents [not what I would consider normal usage especially considering it's not really a high end system].
     
production_coordinator
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gossamer
Agreed, my 1.33 GHz iBook is showing its age.
I have that computer... and am already looking at the MacBook. I'm not going to buy for at least 6 months, but the benchmarks from the UB applications really makes the iBook feel old.

The graphics card in the iBook is nice, but for CPU intensive areas, a UB app is usually 150% faster in real world applications [if not much much faster]
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 01:00 PM
 
I had the iBook 1.33. I now have the MacBook 2.0. For almost everything except Photoshop and Office, the MacBook feels much, much faster. (Office is fine. Even Photoshop is OK, although I wouldn't want to use an Intel Mac as a primary Photoshop machine at this time.)

My benchmarks are here and here.

My favourite graph:

( Last edited by Eug Wanker; Jun 13, 2006 at 01:07 PM. )
     
Targon
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: a void where there should be ecstasy
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 01:08 PM
 
Paul Thurrot <-> "Windows Vista actually will exceed Mac OS X and Linux, but not to the depth we were promised"

Is this muppet the only one left holding on to this? Everything from Windows guys i read about online say the exact opposite. Mac OS X last year this year an next year is better than Vista.

M$ should just give up on its home baked Windows OS architecture, it's terribly designed from the ground up and has too many scabs showing due to the band-aids falling off. M$ need to get hold of the most complete and user friendly linux distro out there or Solaris, sign up a shitload of quality unix/open source coders on an NDA and get them on the case of porting M$'s critical app's, (Office, Outlook, IE etc) and spend a solid 2-3 years shaping and simplifying the OS into something which is easy to use, setup, maintain and build on.

M$ have the money and the resources, I know it would be a huge media backflip for them going to a unix base but they have proven they can't offer anything better.
     
harrisjamieh
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Targon
Paul Thurrot <-> "Windows Vista actually will exceed Mac OS X and Linux, but not to the depth we were promised"

Is this muppet the only one left holding on to this? Everything from Windows guys i read about online say the exact opposite. Mac OS X last year this year an next year is better than Vista.

M$ should just give up on its home baked Windows OS architecture, it's terribly designed from the ground up and has too many scabs showing due to the band-aids falling off. M$ need to get hold of the most complete and user friendly linux distro out there or Solaris, sign up a shitload of quality unix/open source coders on an NDA and get them on the case of porting M$'s critical app's, (Office, Outlook, IE etc) and spend a solid 2-3 years shaping and simplifying the OS into something which is easy to use, setup, maintain and build on.

M$ have the money and the resources, I know it would be a huge media backflip for them going to a unix base but they have proven they can't offer anything better.
The problem with that, is that Windows is used by such a vast number of people, that radically changing the OS would confuse a huge number of people. They have too large a user base to be able to do what Apple did with the total redesign of X over OS 9
iMac Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 1.25GB RAM | 160HD, MacBook Core Duo 1.83 Ghz | 13.3" | 60HD | 1.0GB RAM
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 01:18 PM
 
Actually Thurrot has written that Vista will be disappointing, no breakthrough, but just another Windows release. Obviously there will be some features in Vista you cannot find in OS X Tiger. Since nobody knows what 10.5 will have to offer, he can only compare it to 10.4.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Targon
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: a void where there should be ecstasy
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 01:32 PM
 
While i agree with you, I still take into account the amount of changes in Vista, many things are completely different to XP anyway. Operationally, most Linux distro's are very very similar to Windows from a users perspective. Many Linux distro's have far better application package installation frameworks which are easier to use and manage than Windows. Drop a Start Menu Icon on the taskbar of most distro's and design the menu like the Start Menu and you'd be hard pressed to find an aver joe that would know the difference.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Targon
Paul Thurrot <-> "Windows Vista actually will exceed Mac OS X and Linux, but not to the depth we were promised"
Being both a Vista tester and long time OS X tester, I have to agree when Vista is compared to 10.4. When 10.5 arrives I doubt this will be true anymore.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Targon
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: a void where there should be ecstasy
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 01:43 PM
 
goMac -> Vista related question

Open/Save dialog boxs-WinXP. i ALWAYS set the open/save dialog View to 'DETAILS', however, Windows does NOT retain this setting. This forces a user to change the View for EVERY single open/save dialog which is accessed... extremely annoying considering if u change the view setting for a regular folder window, Windows WILL retain that view 'on a folder by folder basis' or if you prefer to use folder options to set ALL folders that a desired view setting.

Has Vista rectified this?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 01:43 PM
 
Linux has taken a point to mimic Windows in an effort to increase their user share.

The surface of Vista might be different, but AFAIK you can still enable a Win2kish look (at least you could).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Targon
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: a void where there should be ecstasy
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 01:52 PM
 
The most positive alteration to Vista to me is the enhancement of the old F6 Floppy procedure. In practice, when installing XP, often is the case where the system does not have an SATA, ACHI, or Raid driver in which the system requires to install XP on the nominated HDD. The only option available involves hitting F6 at the correct time, insert a Floppy disk and select the driver. There is no provision to select any other source, such as the ever convenient USB Flash drive. As one can imagine this poses many issues with newly build custom systems without floppy drives.

I am pleased to be informed Vista now allows the user to select alternative media types other than the floppy. That's great news altho this really should have been rectified in Win 2000, 6 years ago.
     
Targon
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: a void where there should be ecstasy
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 01:54 PM
 
OreoCookie -> everything i have read about Beta 2 suggests the Win2000 look (classic) is still available.
     
Peter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: England | San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 01:59 PM
 
we don't have time to stop for gas
     
Targon
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: a void where there should be ecstasy
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 02:01 PM
 
http://www.seewindowsvista.com/

a black blank page?? hrm funny
     
Sarc
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 02:08 PM
 
So in a nutshell, what's so spectacular about the Graphics engine that powers Vista ? say, when compared to Quartz ?
:: frankenstein / lcd-less TiBook / 1GHz / radeon 9000 64MB / 1GB RAM / w/ext. 250GB fw drive / noname usb bluetooth dongle / d-link usb 2.0 pcmcia card / X.5.8
:: unibody macbook pro / 2.4 Ghz C2D / 6GB RAM / dell 2407wfp - X.6.3
     
zmcgill
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Iowa State University
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 02:13 PM
 
Apparently it's capable of much more complicated and special things. This only makes sense though, since OS X was designed to be revolutionary for the hardware available at the time.
     
seanc
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Targon
OreoCookie -> everything i have read about Beta 2 suggests the Win2000 look (classic) is still available.
Indeed, i'm using it right now since aero doesn't run properly on my rubbishy pc.
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Peter
WTF? I'm more confused than ever. I went through a bunch of videos that basically tell you nothing. I'm not going through the rest of the them.

Perhaps someone can tell me which specific videos actually have useful info in them, if any.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by seanc
Indeed, i'm using it right now since aero doesn't run properly on my rubbishy pc.
What advantages compared to 2k/XP do you have left if you use the classic user interface?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Targon
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: a void where there should be ecstasy
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 02:40 PM
 
Eug Wanker maybe there is nothing in new in Vista... just check out Apple's website for new features ;-)
     
zmcgill
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Iowa State University
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 03:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
What advantages compared to 2k/XP do you have left if you use the classic user interface?
More security dialog boxes. Nothing else.
     
seanc
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 03:38 PM
 
I turned those dialogues off.

There are no advantages at the moment, my computer can't run Vista well enough for me to find out, but it is free (while in beta stage), runs most of the latest programs and seems to be stable enough.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:50 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,