PDA

View Full Version : Your opinions on Vista?



Cyraxzz
July 30th, 2006, 09:49 AM
I tried it at my local electronic shop(the beta of course), on a quite powerful and modern machine, and this is so far the biggest resource hog that Microsoft has ever released. And it reminded me so awfully much of Mac OS X. Not a single feature impressed me.

x64Jimbo
July 30th, 2006, 09:53 AM
Ditto. Microsoft has not truly innovated in the OS market in a long time. Nearly every feature they implement is taken from OS X, kDE, Gnome, etc. It's upsetting and true. I'd much rather see them go back to the way they used to be. They became the market leader because their product was actually better than everyone else's. If they could gain some of that back, I'd be very pleased.

win_zik
July 30th, 2006, 10:01 AM
I'd much rather see them go back to the way they used to be. They became the market leader because their product was actually better than everyone else's. If they could gain some of that back, I'd be very pleased.
What product are you talking about?

tseliot
July 30th, 2006, 10:17 AM
Vista is not ready for the market yet.

You should wait until the final version is released before expressinf judges on Vista.

For example it would be unfair criticising Ubuntu Edgy Eft since it's still under development

KiwiNZ
July 30th, 2006, 10:22 AM
I have been testing the beta for a few weeks and I must say it has some nice features.
I am looking forward to the final product.

win_zik
July 30th, 2006, 10:22 AM
Vista is not ready for the market yet.

You should wait until the final version is released before expressinf judges on Vista.

For example it would be unfair criticising Ubuntu Edgy Eft since it's still under development

But then again, edgy hasn't been in development for years already, it also isn't supposed to be feature complete and it certainly isn't in a late beta stage.

Lord Illidan
July 30th, 2006, 10:29 AM
But then again, edgy hasn't been in development for years already, it also isn't supposed to be feature complete and it certainly isn't in a late beta stage.

Vista has been shedding features since day 1...WinFS comes to mind..

We'll wait...Duke Nukem Vista forever!

ahaslam
July 30th, 2006, 01:26 PM
I must admit that it does look very nice.
I don't have the resources, space or time for it though.

Tony.

Kernel Sanders
July 30th, 2006, 02:39 PM
Bloatware. Useless features.

x64Jimbo
July 30th, 2006, 05:19 PM
What product are you talking about?
Windows 3.1. There was nothing like it at the time, and it revolutionized computing. With DOS, only the elite were able to even use a computer for daily tasks since not many normal folks can wrap their head around the idea of a CLI. That changed with Windows 3.1. Now I realize that there were previous versions of Windows, but like Vista, they were not ready for prime time. 3.1 hit the nail on the head and brought personal computing to the forefront, and for that, I really do thank them.

ComplexNumber
July 30th, 2006, 05:21 PM
i personally think the aero interface is boring, yet overdone. i would much rather have the gnome look with my large collection of themes.

win_zik
July 30th, 2006, 05:22 PM
Windows 3.1. There was nothing like it at the time, and it revolutionized computing. With DOS, only the elite were able to even use a computer for daily tasks since not many normal folks can wrap their head around the idea of a CLI. That changed with Windows 3.1. Now I realize that there were previous versions of Windows, but like Vista, they were not ready for prime time. 3.1 hit the nail on the head and brought personal computing to the forefront, and for that, I really do thank them.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not correct.
First off all there of course were Apple already offering a graphical user interface for a time.
Then there were also other interface that, like win 3.1, ran on top of DOS.

ComplexNumber
July 30th, 2006, 05:27 PM
I'm sorry, but that's simply not correct.
First off all there of course were Apple already offering a graphical user interface for a time.
Then there were also other interface that, like win 3.1, ran on top of DOS.
i also remember the atari ST offering a graphical user inteface in the mid-1980's. the macintosh was the first widespread computer to get a GUI, though.

win_zik
July 30th, 2006, 05:35 PM
i also remember the atari ST offering a graphical user inteface in the mid-1980's. the macintosh was the first widespread computer to get a GUI, though.

Exactly.
And I just remembered GEOS. :D
http://toastytech.com/guis/c64g.html

ComplexNumber
July 30th, 2006, 05:48 PM
Exactly.
And I just remembered GEOS. :D
http://toastytech.com/guis/c64g.html
wow! i remember the c64 well - always wanted one for the superb sound synthesiser chip and hardware sprite graphics. i ended up with a bbc micro (even though thats no bad thing. the bbc was superb for its time). that was at the beginning of the 1980's.
after the beeb, i got an atari st (but really wanted an amiga).

x64Jimbo
July 30th, 2006, 05:52 PM
All well and good, but none of the companies you mentioned brought their product into the public eye. Know why? At that time, they didn't have business sense to back up their technological skills. Microsoft has a massive marketing machine, and they are quite good at selling their products. I don't appreciate the way that they've been abusing their monopoly, but if they had not stepped up and delivered on a large scale, no one would have. Apple's GUI was very confusing at the time, and still is to some extent. Who drags their disk into the trash, anyway? What the hell were they thinking? And why no right-click? Windows gained prolificity through catering to business people. Efficiency is the most important thing in the mind of a businessperson, and I can tell you that having to Ctrl+Click on something just to get its context menu would annoy the living crap out of me as a businessman. I would want to be able to do what I want without having all these silly "user friendly" features getting in the way. Apple's market testing obviously was not on a broad enough scale for them to see that they were designing their systems counter-intuitively. They had the first GUI. I'm not saying that MS had the first GUI. I'm saying MS was the first one to make the Personal Computer a reality.

ComplexNumber
July 30th, 2006, 05:54 PM
All well and good, but none of the companies you mentioned brought their product into the public eye. Know why? are you actually referring to the arati st and amiga? in other words, the most high profile and widespread personal computers at that time (for those that upgraded from the bbc micro, spectrum, vic 20 or commodore 64).


I'm saying MS was the first one to make the Personal Computer a reality.
no they weren't. that accolade goes to the zx81.

x64Jimbo
July 30th, 2006, 06:00 PM
are you actually referring to the arati st and amiga? in other words, the most high profile and widespread personal computers at that time (for those that upgraded from the bbc micro, spectrum, vic 20 or commodore 64).


no they weren't. that accolade goes to the zx81.
Widespread in what context? Certainly not by today's standards. Back then if you walked into a person's house and saw a computer, you'd be like "Whoa... What is that?"
Yes, they were the most widespread, but it's relative. There's a lot of Linux geeks out there today, but would you call it a widespread OS? No. The people who used amiga and atari st back then were the equivalent of today's Linux geeks. People look over my shoulder every day and say, "But... where's... the Start button?"

23meg
July 30th, 2006, 06:03 PM
I won't ever use a TC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing)-enabled OS on a machine connected to the net. Thus for me Vista loses the game before it even begins; I don't have to consider it in terms of the features, look and feel, system requirements, so on; it loses on a much more essential basis: basic rights, privacy and control over what my computer is doing.

ComplexNumber
July 30th, 2006, 06:03 PM
Widespread in what context? virtually everyone who had a computer had them. of course, computers weren't as ubiquitous then as they are now. but for the time, the atari, amigo, spectrum, vic 20, bbc micros and the rest of their ilk were ubiquitous. i remember those days well - virtually everyone had at least one of them.



The people who used amiga and atari st back then were the equivalent of today's Linux geeks. i don't know what part of the world you come from, but you couldn't be more wrong about the situation in britain at that time.

x64Jimbo
July 30th, 2006, 06:15 PM
I won't ever use a TC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_computing)-enabled OS on a machine connected to the net. Thus for me Vista loses the game before it even begins; I don't have to consider it in terms of the features, look and feel, system requirements, so on; it loses on a much more essential basis: basic rights, privacy and control over what my computer is doing.
Right you are. Treacherous Computing operating systems will never, EVER touch a single bit of my RAM.

i don't know what part of the world you come from, but you couldn't be more wrong about the situation in britain at that time.
I come from the USA. My dad was working for IBM at the time, and I can tell you that literally no one we knew had anything like that.
I will pose this question:
To me, it's obvious how Microsoft maintains its monopoly today. It twists people's arms into submission. However, monopolies don't just form out of nowhere. They had to have done something right to get the entire world behind them. What did they do? They developed a product that was easy to use and got a bunch of software developers to write for Windows. It's not rocket science, but it did take a lot of business sense and cooperation with other companies (which they admittedly DON'T do anymore) but that tactic was what brought them into the limelight.

Footissimo
July 30th, 2006, 06:25 PM
no they weren't. that accolade goes to the zx81.

ZX80 ;)

I had one :P

x64Jimbo
July 30th, 2006, 06:29 PM
Man, we got some hardcore fanatics in here. I try to say that MS did one good thing over 10 years ago, and everyone's like "Nuh-Uh! Atari Amiga Blah!"
Jeez.

win_zik
July 30th, 2006, 06:31 PM
All well and good, but none of the companies you mentioned brought their product into the public eye. Know why? At that time, they didn't have business sense to back up their technological skills.

As ComplexNumber already noted, this is simply wrong for the C64, the Amiga, the Atari ST, certainly for Apple and don't forget the other guis for DOS like GEM that were commercially successful.



... but if they had not stepped up and delivered on a large scale, no one would have.

I don't see why that should be the case, given the examples I already mentioned. Also, I thought your original point was that they were inventive.



Apple's GUI was very confusing at the time, and still is to some extent. Who drags their disk into the trash, anyway? What the hell were they thinking? And why no right-click? Windows gained prolificity through catering to business people. Efficiency is the most important thing in the mind of a businessperson, and I can tell you that having to Ctrl+Click on something just to get its context menu would annoy the living crap out of me as a businessman. I would want to be able to do what I want without having all these silly "user friendly" features getting in the way. Apple's market testing obviously was not on a broad enough scale for them to see that they were designing their systems counter-intuitively.

I don't think Apple bashing really adds to this discussion and I'm pretty sure Apple's problem wasn't lack of userfriendlyness, but the fact that they couldn't compete with an open platform, like the PC.



I'm not saying that MS had the first GUI. I'm saying MS was the first one to make the Personal Computer a reality.
I thought you were saying they were inventive and I fail to see how you can still hold this position, given all the evidence to the contrary.
As to MS making the PC a reality, I think IBM and especially those who reengineered the BIOS and made the PC an open platform deserve the credit for this.

win_zik
July 30th, 2006, 06:34 PM
Man, we got some hardcore fanatics in here. I try to say that MS did one good thing over 10 years ago, and everyone's like "Nuh-Uh! Atari Amiga Blah!"
Jeez.

I'm sorry, but I really take exception to being called a fanatic just because I dare to disagree your opinion that Windows 3.1 was inventive and then even have the nerve to back my disagreement up with facts.

x64Jimbo
July 30th, 2006, 06:36 PM
Ok, so you're telling me that ALL the other GUIs at the time were more innovative? They were ALL better implemented than Windows 3.1? I will ask my question again:
How come they're not leading the market now? If they were all better, why did MS win? They may have had a huge marketing machine, but it could not have beat out all those competing products if they were truly superior.

I'm sorry, but I really take exception to being called a fanatic just because I dare to disagree your opinion that Windows 3.1 was inventive and then even have the nerve to back my disagreement up with facts.
Woah, hey. No need to get snarky.

ComplexNumber
July 30th, 2006, 06:36 PM
I come from the USA. My dad was working for IBM at the time, and I can tell you that literally no one we knew had anything like that. thats not surprising at all. no offence, but america is quite backward in many respects compared to places like europe. just look at the state of the phone networks even now. america, now, is at the same stage that europe was at about 6 years ago. the situation is the same with computers.
i can tell you for a fact that personal computers were significantly more ubiquitous in britain and other parts of europe than america even then. virtually EVERYONE had one, sometime 2. and microsoft was nowehre to be seen at that time.
guess what the best selling computer of all time is? the commodore 64 in the early to mid 1980's. also, don't forget the impact that the commodore pet had on personal computing. sadly, the bitter rivalry between amiga/commodore and atari left them both worse off.



What did they do? they used unscrupulous tactics - stealing others ideas, getting MS bundled in with every PC, and exceptionally good marketing. windows, itself, was always a crap OS, though. they also used some smart dealing. for example, IBM(by far the leader in manufacturing PC's at that time) would have been much better off signing a deal with microsoft that meant that the windows OS could only be licenced on ibm machines. however, i think anticompetitive laws at the time prevented them, but not too sure. that meant that MS were free to put windows on ibm, HP, and all the rest. remember that IBM's OS/2 was significantly better than windows.
another smart move by MS was buying DOS.

x64Jimbo
July 30th, 2006, 06:41 PM
america is quite backward in many respects compared to places like europe. No argument there. I don't like the way this country handles technology.
So are you really saying that MS has NEVER innovated? That's really a stretch if you ask me, but everyone knows that proving a negative is like pushing water uphill with a rake, so I guess it's pretty moot.

win_zik
July 30th, 2006, 06:45 PM
Ok, so you're telling me that ALL the other GUIs at the time were more innovative? They were ALL better implemented than Windows 3.1?

No, that's not what I said at all.
I simply pointed out that win 3.1 was nothing new and innovative. There were other guis around at the same time or even had been around for some time. I even gave you examples of the guis I refered to. I really don't know why you make such a big deal about it.



I will ask my question again:
How come they're not leading the market now? If they were all better, why did MS win? They may have had a huge marketing machine, but it could not have beat out all those competing products if they were truly superior.

Look at OS/2. MS certainly can beat products that are clearly better.
However, I can only repeat it, I did not claim they were all superior, all I did claim was that win 3.1 wasn't innovative and I think I've established this fact pretty solidly by know.



Woah, hey. No need to get snarky.
Whoy, hey, your the one who called me and others a fanatic.

Anyway, as this is a thread about Vista, this will be my last post about this subject.

Edit: And here I am, just one minute later breaking my promise... ;-D



So are you really saying that MS has NEVER innovated?
That may be too much, but I think one can argue that MS' strengths never lay in innovation, but in other things.

ComplexNumber
July 30th, 2006, 06:46 PM
So are you really saying that MS has NEVER innovated? they haven't innovated. they couldn't innovate themselves out of a paper bag. they are just masters at marketing, and are experts at creating the image that they are the first to do Feature A or Feature B. they're pretty much like sony in that respect.

x64Jimbo
July 30th, 2006, 06:55 PM
think one can argue that MS' strengths never lay in innovation, but in other things.
When did I ever say that their strength lay in innovation? I didn't say that. I said that they did innovate way back in the day.
Vista is a gigantic ripoff and I haven't seen any innovation from MS in a long time. Does this mean that my memory of an at least somewhat consumer-minded Microsoft has to be tarnished? No. I remember their early days. In fact, I would say that before Steve Ballmer took over the company's operations, they were mostly about the technology. Bill Gates is not the kind of guy that we make him out to be, folks. He's probably the most generous man in the history of the world.
I still maintain my sentiments that Windows 3.1 was the last innovative MS product, though it may not have been the first GUI to hit the market.
However, I feel like this conversation has gotten WAY off track, and it's time to return it to its rightful owner. Sorry for the hijacking.

G Morgan
July 30th, 2006, 09:18 PM
I think MS innovate more now than they did back in the day. At least .Net is a good product though it'll likely die because they will use it to prop up their inferior products in a marketing nonsense. I hope Sun sort Java out (as in make it more efficient) because I'd hate to see .Net become their new monopolising tool.

As for the talk about 80's computers. I owned a C64 though all my mates had Spectrums, can't account for taste can you.

It's best not to judge Vista until it hits release but it has to be said that this beta release is a joke. It's alpha and they labelled it beta so people would use it. Fortunately we all have the choice not to use Vista.