[Kerrigan]

Vista Beta 2 is available for free download from MS, and I've put it on my PC to see how well it runs. Frankly, I'm impressed with the graphics system (WDM). It seems very stable especially for a beta. Also, the compatibility with XP apps is nice.

It's especially impressive when I compare it with the OS X public beta. When Apple reworked its operating system with OS X, there was no usable backwards compatibility, and everything was slow as molasses. In fact, OS X was not even usable until around 10.3. And yet people talk about how great Apple's software is.

That's what I like about MS: they provide smooth transitions with each OS upgrade. You don't have to worry about it breaking all of your apps or slowing your computer down to the point where simple things like re-sizing windows or surfing the net become chores.

[edit] Vista is less impressive the more I use it. ugghh

[Mithras]

Of course, if Apple had waited this long to release an OS, you'd be looking at 10.4 or 10.5.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

The reason that makes the transition so smooth is the same reason it is holding them back. All the fancy new features they were going to put in Vista got cut because of backwards compatibility.

Vista is nothing more than XP with a prettier face, like lipstick on a pig.

Not to mention it will still be highly insecure.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Vista is nothing more than XP with a prettier face, like lipstick on a pig.

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Not to mention it will still be highly insecure.

"Do I look fat in this casing?"

[starman]

XP was a massive, necessary upgrade from the world of 9x.

Vista is...what? Give me ONE good reason to upgrade to it. There's nothing in it I _NEED_.

[glideslope]

Vista. ROFLMAO.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by starman

Windows 2000 was a massive, necessary upgrade from the world of 9x.

Fixed.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Mithras

Of course, if Apple had waited this long to release an OS, you'd be looking at 10.4 or 10.5.

IIRC, Apple took nearly 10 years to deliver on its promise of a next-gen OS, floundering with Taligent and Copland, and then several years of misery with 10.0, 10.1, and 10.2.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Fixed.

2000 wasn't for gamers.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Vista is nothing more than XP with a prettier face, like lipstick on a pig.

Easy, pal!

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by starman

XP was a massive, necessary upgrade from the world of 9x.

Vista is...what? Give me ONE good reason to upgrade to it. There's nothing in it I _NEED_.

Well windows does NEED to be prettier and more secure but I know what you are saying.

There are no big features or selling points. It is just MS's latest OS 5,6,6 years later looks better but is the same ****, different pile.

I much prefer the method of just trashing everything and starting from scratch, not every upgrade but it should be done every once and a while.

I am praying that the Mac OS gets a MAJOR interface overhaul and I don't just mean the Finder.
Aqua is so 90's and we need to move on, it just doesn't make good use of space on large monitors.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

IIRC, Apple took nearly 10 years to deliver on its promise of a next-gen OS, floundering with Taligent and Copland, and then several years of misery with 10.0, 10.1, and 10.2.

You're right, Apple ****ed up and they learnt their lession.

OSX 10.0 was horrible, the free upgrade to 10.1 was more than usable.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

IIRC, Apple took nearly 10 years to deliver on its promise of a next-gen OS, floundering with Taligent and Copland, and then several years of misery with 10.0, 10.1, and 10.2.

Vista is little more than a .1 (or .2) upgrade. It better be compatible with XP applications considering they are using the same code base.

As others have said, for 95% of users... what's the advantage of upgrading from XP to Vista?

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

What the **** was wrong with 10.1? I could be just as productive with it as 10.4. I would only miss Exposeing my windows and apps that for some reason require 10.4

Not really, I had the MIP hack Awesome.

[itai195]

I thought 10.1 was very usable, personally. Comparing Vista's development to OS X is rather disingenuous considering that, now that many major features have been stripped, Vista is essentially a big point release.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

What the **** was wrong with 10.1?

Who companied about 10.1? It was 10.0 that was the problem.

[Eug Wanker]

10.1 was usable, but just a usable beta, IMO. Too many issues.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Well windows does NEED to be prettier and more secure but I know what you are saying.

There are no big features or selling points. It is just MS's latest OS 5,6,6 years later looks better but is the same ****, different pile.

I much prefer the method of just trashing everything and starting from scratch, not every upgrade but it should be done every once and a while.

I am praying that the Mac OS gets a MAJOR interface overhaul and I don't just mean the Finder.
Aqua is so 90's and we need to move on, it just doesn't make good use of space on large monitors.

Well well well I read a rumor about the direction of some of Leopard's interface.

Clue 1: Apple uses it in its ads and on its site design and in Front Row.

Clue 2. A million companies ripped it off in ads for their products so Apple is going to drop it now and come up with something else

[jaydon34]

Yeah it seems to be a user interface redesign tossed in with some features built in to os x already. Or are they leaving those out as well?

[milhous]

i'm running the 64-bit version of vista beta 2 and i'm not too impressed with it. i don't like the fact that almost every system-related option requires an additional mouse-click confirmation while the entire screen dims black and you have to make a choice before going back to what you were doing.

that and the fact that the system is taking up 875MB of the 2GB installed at startup is insane.

luckily, iTunes works so I can access my iBook playlist through Bonjour.

just looking at the vista interface shows how desperate ms is to catch-up to os x. had they wanted to, they could've spent the time actually improving the interface. instead they offer a windows xp-style hardware accelerated interface with transparency which now is old news.

it all comes back to the good programming vs. thoughtless programming argument.

though i'm sure we'll see some changes made in the final version, i don't see there being any major changes to the ui from beta to final.

[zmcgill]

Originally Posted by milhous

i'm running the 64-bit version of vista beta 2 and i'm not too impressed with it. i don't like the fact that almost every system-related option requires an additional mouse-click confirmation while the entire screen dims black and you have to make a choice before going back to what you were doing.

I HATE that! I installed VB2 on my Dell at work this morning and that was the first thing I noticed. It's true that OS X requires a password for certain options, but that's either when changing system settings while under a limited user account, or to change VITAL system settings, like user accounts. Is this just a feature to prevent viruses from changing things on their own? No doubt there's an easy way past that...

If I remember correctly, MacAddict declared it was safe to switch to X when 10.2 came out. I used 10.2.8 on my iMac 400/640/10GB exclusively until I got my iBook with 10.3.9, but my parents have the iMac now, still running 10.2.8 just fine, it's rock solid.

Also, when I first installed Vista, it couldn't recognize the built in NIC (not a PCI card, built into the mobo) so I had to find drivers for it on Dell's website and then run the hardware wizard and pull the drivers off of a USB flash drive.
I still can't find a way to have multiple network profiles like OS X, for example have a profile for DHCP and a profile with a static IP (needed for my workplace). And apparently it wants a 128MB graphics card for the best eye candy.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

10.1 was usable, but just a usable beta, IMO. Too many issues.

Well it wasn't a beta, I know you like to call early releases that though but 10.1 had just about every feature you could want in an OS at the time.

You wanna talk beta look at google. Leaving something in a public beta for 2 years in an insecurity as they don't want to admit any bugs or missing features are for any other reason than it is a beta.

Kinda like those "under construction" images from the 90's that was on EVERY website.

[zmcgill]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Well it wasn't a beta, I know you like to call early releases that though but 10.1 had just about every feature you could want in an OS at the time.

You wanna talk beta look at google. Leaving something in a public beta for 2 years in an insecurity as they don't want to admit any bugs or missing features are for any other reason than it is a beta.

Kinda like those "under construction" images from the 90's that was on EVERY website.

[img]http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/under-construction.gif[img]

I remember those! Gotta love gifs...

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Well it wasn't a beta, I know you like to call early releases that though but 10.1 had just about every feature you could want in an OS at the time.

Feature-rich doesn't mean non-beta. Indeed, as Vista marches on towards non-beta-ness, it loses features.

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.

10.1 was usable, and it was an enormous improvement over OS 9, but it always had an unfinished feel to it IMO. That changed in 10.2, after a few point updates. To me, 10.0 wasn't the beta. It was closer to being an alpha. ie. It was basically unusable in the real-world.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Feature-rich doesn't mean non-beta. Indeed, as Vista marches on towards non-beta-ness, it loses features.

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.

10.1 was usable, and it was an enormous improvement over OS 9, but it always had an unfinished feel to it IMO. That changed in 10.2, after a few point updates.

Soooo what you are saying is that if a product loses features before release that still makes it a beta?

How does a product lose its beta title?

Honestly, I don't understand your requirements. I think you called iPhoto a beta up intil version 4 because it didn't have nested folders.

[goMac]

I'm running Vista Beta 2. The window manager is nice. Extremely nice.

Microsoft screwed a bunch of stuff up though. They split up each tab in each control panel into a different control panel. The User Access Controls are annoying. When I load in my sound drivers my computer will blue screen every five minutes. It wouldn't install from DVD, and when I did get it to install from ISO, it killed my XP install.

It actually feels a lot like OS X public beta or 10.0. Lot's of device driver issues, application compatibility problems, weird interface quirks. It has a lot of potential, but it needs work, and my experience has been that it's been very crashy.

[zmcgill]

Oh, and how do you change display resolution from the control panel's 'classic' view. There's no more 'display' panel!
And I can't change the refresh rate, so staring at this monitor is hurting my eyes (dell 15" flat crt)

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Soooo what you are saying is that if a product loses features before release that still makes it a beta?

No, what I'm saying is that feature gain or feature loss doesn't make it or not make it a beta.

How does a product lose its beta title?

By becoming non-buggy and polished.

Honestly, I don't understand your requirements. I think you called iPhoto a beta up intil version 4 because it didn't have nested folders.

No I called iPhoto a beta up until version 2-ish because it was extremely buggy. It was extremely easy to crash the original iPhoto, and the original iPhoto's photobook functionality was an exercise in frustration.

Later versions were non-beta, as in they became much more stable and polished, but I still didn't use them because I thought the fact that you couldn't nest folders was stupid.

To put it another way:

When 10.1 was out, I didn't generally recommend Macs to people. This was due to the fact that OS X seemed it needed more polishing, and because of lack of drivers.

[Kerrigan]

People keep talking about the dropped features..

WinFS is going to be released as a free download sometime during 07
Same goes for PowerShell

I think were 1 or 2 other features like EFI but I don't see how these are deal breakers.

And it is a lot different from the early versions of OS X. Remember how Mac users were desperately hoping that each upgrade would make OSX "snappy"? And how could you not remember how slow web browsing was? I remember that Word had a typing lag, which went away finally in 10.2. It was horribly slow, from window-resizing to file browsing. At least Vista has managed to solve these problems before the final release.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

By becoming non-buggy and polished.

Attention everyone. 10.4.6 is a public beta.

Seriously, the Finder is ASS beyond all belief and many other parts of the OS is messy and unpolished. Known issues with the finder from 10.0 are still not fixed.

For example why does the spinning beach ball show up sometimes and others the OS9 watch?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

For example why does the spinning beach ball show up sometimes and others the OS9 watch?

Ummm. That's never going to be fixed. That's because the application is explicitly calling the OS 9 watch.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Feature-rich doesn't mean non-beta. Indeed, as Vista marches on towards non-beta-ness, it loses features.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

10.1 was usable, and it was an enormous improvement over OS 9, but it always had an unfinished feel to it IMO. That changed in 10.2, after a few point updates. To me, 10.0 wasn't the beta. It was closer to being an alpha. ie. It was basically unusable in the real-world.

This is another situation where Apple was VERY clear about the OS. When OS X 10.0 and 10.1 came out... they said it was for "early adopters." I've been on since DR2... so 10.0 was FANTASTIC! Granted, for many it would have been aweful... but really, those people weren't meant for OS X 10.0.

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Oh, and how do you change display resolution from the control panel's 'classic' view. There's no more 'display' panel!
And I can't change the refresh rate, so staring at this monitor is hurting my eyes (dell 15" flat crt)

Right click desktop>Display properties>Resolution>Wizard>I want to change my resolution>Yes>Yes>No>I want to change the refresh rate>100Hz>OK>No>Not Now>I really mean it>I don't want to restart yet>No>Please>OK>Restart.....

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Attention everyone. 10.4.6 is a public beta.

Seriously, the Finder is ASS beyond all belief and many other parts of the OS is messy and unpolished. Known issues with the finder from 10.0 are still not fixed.

For example why does the spinning beach ball show up sometimes and others the OS9 watch?

Actually I agree. OS X still needs work. However, it's obviously a heluvalot more mature in OS X 10.4 or 10.2 for that matter than it ever was in 10.1.

ie:

10.0: Totally unusable IMO.
10.1: Usable, but not something I'd necessarily want to recommend to someone on their primary machine.
10.2: Much more polished and ready for prime time.
10.3: Even better
10.4: Even better

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

When OS X 10.0 and 10.1 came out... they said it was for "early adopters."

If that's true, then why did they preinstall 10.1 as the default OS on my TiBook?

[forkies]

20 Things You Won't Like About Windows Vista

[itai195]

IIRC they also preinstalled OS 9 until Jaguar came out.

Besides, if we're talking about a beta OS being preinstalled, how soon we forget Windows ME

[zmcgill]

I remember 10.1 being preinstalled on some iMacs, but it defaulted to OS 9.

SWG: when I right click the desktop, there is only a 'personalize' link, no display properties. And why can't I do this from the control panel?

Originally Posted by SWG

Seriously, the Finder is ASS beyond all belief

I don't believe that, nearly all Mac users don't believe that, and you don't either. Sure, it's not perfect, but you're being excessive.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

People keep talking about the dropped features..

WinFS is going to be released as a free download sometime during 07
Same goes for PowerShell

Wrong... WinFS has changed... and the WinFX that will ship in 07 will NOT be what the original WinFX was. Same name... different product.

Virtual folders also bit the dust along with PC to PC synchronization (along with a LONG list of other things).

[/quote]And it is a lot different from the early versions of OS X. Remember how Mac users were desperately hoping that each upgrade would make OSX "snappy"? And how could you not remember how slow web browsing was? I remember that Word had a typing lag, which went away finally in 10.2. It was horribly slow, from window-resizing to file browsing. At least Vista has managed to solve these problems before the final release.[/QUOTE]

Microsoft: I'm going to give you $100... (but only ends up giving you $50)
Apple: I'm going to give you a surprise... (and gives you $50)

I guess I see a difference.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I don't believe that, nearly all Mac users don't believe that, and you don't either. Sure, it's not perfect, but you're being excessive.

100% of all people don't believe that no. But if you ask around it is usually the #1 complaint and it sure is for me also. I see new users have no clue on what to do with it and I am always fighting with the damn thing.

God bless the day the finder actually remembers my view preferences. The classic OS9 mode should also be eliminated.

Nothing like watching a newbie download a DMG and it opens a window with no sidebar and I tell them to copy the app to the applications folder. You can imagine where it goes from there..

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

SWG: when I right click the desktop, there is only a 'personalize' link, no display properties. And why can't I do this from the control panel?

BTW as it says in his sig he is not me

[goMac]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

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]

Yes they do. Quartz 2D Extreme comes to mind. So does half of the features for OS X Server.

[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)

[Eug Wanker]

My iBook came with both OS 9 and 10.1 preinstalled. However, it defaulted to OS 9 on the initial bootup.

My 1 GHz TiBook came with both OS 9 and 10.2 Jag pre-installed. However, it defaulted to OS X on the initial bootup.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

If that's true, then why did they preinstall 10.1 as the default OS on my TiBook?

Which TiBook? 667? 800?

Originally Posted by goMac

Yes they do. Quartz 2D Extreme comes to mind. So does half of the features for OS X Server.

Yeah, Q2DE was supposed to be The Next Big Thing for release in Tiger, but then Apple went all silent on us about it. The difference though is that it was only promoted at the developer conferences. MS seems to have been more public with Vista's proposed features, only to exclude those features later.

[zmcgill]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

BTW as it says in his sig he is not me

Oops, my bad, I should have known that.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

And it is a lot different from the early versions of OS X. Remember how Mac users were desperately hoping that each upgrade would make OSX "snappy"? And how could you not remember how slow web browsing was?

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.

[goMac]

I think my parents iMac/500 came with 10.1 as the default OS.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

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.

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.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by goMac

Yes they do. Quartz 2D Extreme comes to mind.

When Apple publicly announced 10.4 did they talk about Q2E or is this something that was just mentioned to developers?

I don't remember seeing it on the Apples site for the 10.4 preview before it shipped.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

When Apple publicly announced 10.4 did they talk about Q2E or is this something that was just mentioned to developers?

I don't remember seeing it on the Apples site for the 10.4 preview before it shipped.

I believe it was talked about in the keynote, but I wasn't at WWDC that year. It was definitely on the 10.4 website. Anything in the WWDC keynote is public. Last year a second session, the .Mac 2.0 session, was also public, but .Mac 2.0 also ran very late, which is why almost no developers use .Mac 2.0.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

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

Yes, for the "sack" of the thread, please don't.