So what's wrong with a new look?
-
I've read that several people - including my colleagues at work - complained about Vista's new look, Aero. I'm using Windows XP at the moment and I find the new XP skin much less of an eyesore compared to the 'classic' look. I like Vista's glassy look and I'm pretty sure many home users would love it too (that is if their PCs can run it). What I hate is that XP and Vista rearranged the furnitures, or so to speak, by moving the buttons/shortcuts/items around, grouping and presenting them in "smarter" way (e.g. Control Panel, File Search) - or so they think. So, let me ask you guys, what's wrong with Vista on the basis of new look only?
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
Edbert P wrote:
So, let me ask you guys, what's wrong with Vista on the basis of new look only?
The $3000 in new hardware to get the new look? Because it's just a new look, but the same or worse underneath? Because all it'll do is make my advertising experience better than TV? Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
I've read that several people - including my colleagues at work - complained about Vista's new look, Aero. I'm using Windows XP at the moment and I find the new XP skin much less of an eyesore compared to the 'classic' look. I like Vista's glassy look and I'm pretty sure many home users would love it too (that is if their PCs can run it). What I hate is that XP and Vista rearranged the furnitures, or so to speak, by moving the buttons/shortcuts/items around, grouping and presenting them in "smarter" way (e.g. Control Panel, File Search) - or so they think. So, let me ask you guys, what's wrong with Vista on the basis of new look only?
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
-
I've read that several people - including my colleagues at work - complained about Vista's new look, Aero. I'm using Windows XP at the moment and I find the new XP skin much less of an eyesore compared to the 'classic' look. I like Vista's glassy look and I'm pretty sure many home users would love it too (that is if their PCs can run it). What I hate is that XP and Vista rearranged the furnitures, or so to speak, by moving the buttons/shortcuts/items around, grouping and presenting them in "smarter" way (e.g. Control Panel, File Search) - or so they think. So, let me ask you guys, what's wrong with Vista on the basis of new look only?
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
I've had an accelerated video card for probably close to a decade now. Solid DirectX support since at least the release of Windows 2000. The last three PCs i've built or bought have had fair more video card than i had any need for. And now that a version of Windows is finally gonna use some of that to draw buttons faster, it's also gonna draw them slower, unless i buy a new card. Oh, also, my complaint about XP was the unnecessarily large title bars.
---- Scripts i’ve known... CPhog 1.8.2 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.2 - printer-friendly forums Expand all 1.0 - Expand all messages In-place Delete 1.0 - AJAX-style post delete Syntax 0.1 - Syntax highlighting for code blocks in the forums
-
I'd guess that a lot of people will buy Vista, THEN find they need a new video card/new processor. I also hate the way they move stuff around, I still use the classic start menu in XP.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Runs fine on my 2.8GHz P4 (533MHz bus), 512MB RAM, Radeon 9550 Pro w/128MB RAM (on AGP 4x because the chipset won't do 8x). VS2005 runs as well on Vista as on XP (i.e. not terribly well in 512MB). I bought the new graphics card to get Glass; it cost about £45 including taxes. I had to turn Glass on myself since the performance score is only 2.1 but I can't see why Setup didn't turn it on, because it's fine. I don't know where the scare-mongering about needing a new graphics card or processor is coming from. It simply isn't true, in my experience.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
Edbert P wrote:
So, let me ask you guys, what's wrong with Vista on the basis of new look only?
The $3000 in new hardware to get the new look? Because it's just a new look, but the same or worse underneath? Because all it'll do is make my advertising experience better than TV? Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithSee my reply[^] to Christian on the cost of hardware to get Glass working. As for it being the same or worse underneath, see Kernel Enhancements for Windows Vista[^].
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
I've read that several people - including my colleagues at work - complained about Vista's new look, Aero. I'm using Windows XP at the moment and I find the new XP skin much less of an eyesore compared to the 'classic' look. I like Vista's glassy look and I'm pretty sure many home users would love it too (that is if their PCs can run it). What I hate is that XP and Vista rearranged the furnitures, or so to speak, by moving the buttons/shortcuts/items around, grouping and presenting them in "smarter" way (e.g. Control Panel, File Search) - or so they think. So, let me ask you guys, what's wrong with Vista on the basis of new look only?
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
Everyone seems to be commenting, 'oh, I need a new computer', or, 'oh, it'll need really powerful hardware'. My experience with RC1 is that you don't. I installed RC1 on my existing home PC - a three-year-old homebrew. The only things I changed were a new hard disk (didn't want to repartition) and a new video card. I only changed the video card because the GeForce 4 Ti4800SE I had could not run Glass - and that's because it doesn't do DirectX 9 Shader Model 2.0 or some such, it simply wasn't capable. Now, I did a clean install - if you upgrade XP you may get a different experience.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
I've read that several people - including my colleagues at work - complained about Vista's new look, Aero. I'm using Windows XP at the moment and I find the new XP skin much less of an eyesore compared to the 'classic' look. I like Vista's glassy look and I'm pretty sure many home users would love it too (that is if their PCs can run it). What I hate is that XP and Vista rearranged the furnitures, or so to speak, by moving the buttons/shortcuts/items around, grouping and presenting them in "smarter" way (e.g. Control Panel, File Search) - or so they think. So, let me ask you guys, what's wrong with Vista on the basis of new look only?
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
> So, let me ask you guys, what's wrong with Vista on the basis of new look only? The fact that its implementation of Windows Classic looks bad? Seriously, I'm perfectly happy with Windows Classic on XP/2K3. I doubt any Vista tester at MS has actually spent more than 10 minutes with it though.
-
I've read that several people - including my colleagues at work - complained about Vista's new look, Aero. I'm using Windows XP at the moment and I find the new XP skin much less of an eyesore compared to the 'classic' look. I like Vista's glassy look and I'm pretty sure many home users would love it too (that is if their PCs can run it). What I hate is that XP and Vista rearranged the furnitures, or so to speak, by moving the buttons/shortcuts/items around, grouping and presenting them in "smarter" way (e.g. Control Panel, File Search) - or so they think. So, let me ask you guys, what's wrong with Vista on the basis of new look only?
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
-
> So, let me ask you guys, what's wrong with Vista on the basis of new look only? The fact that its implementation of Windows Classic looks bad? Seriously, I'm perfectly happy with Windows Classic on XP/2K3. I doubt any Vista tester at MS has actually spent more than 10 minutes with it though.
When I installed RC1 turning on classic view was the first thing I did. To me, it's not really that different from classic view in XP/2003 - of course, Explorer has changed a bit, it has some almost-but-not-quite XP-style buttons on the toolbar, but at least they appear to be in 16 colours :) My system is a four year old P4 2.4, 1GB, and a Radeon 9550 (w/256MB). It runs Aero nicely, despite being a low-spec graphics card, but, all the flashy whiz-bang stuff I turn off through personal preference. I don't have any visual effects enabled in XP on my laptop, for example - over time, I found myself sitting around waiting for menus to fade in... Aero does look very nice indeed - slick presentation, scrolling and fading work really well where used (in almost all occurances, these effects are used to give better visual feedback to the user) - and I'm sure many people will enjoy it, but as someone who uses a computer for ~10 hours a day, it just gets in the way for me.
-
I've read that several people - including my colleagues at work - complained about Vista's new look, Aero. I'm using Windows XP at the moment and I find the new XP skin much less of an eyesore compared to the 'classic' look. I like Vista's glassy look and I'm pretty sure many home users would love it too (that is if their PCs can run it). What I hate is that XP and Vista rearranged the furnitures, or so to speak, by moving the buttons/shortcuts/items around, grouping and presenting them in "smarter" way (e.g. Control Panel, File Search) - or so they think. So, let me ask you guys, what's wrong with Vista on the basis of new look only?
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
There are no cracks for the new software yet ;)
Pablo Sometimes I think there's no reason to get out of bed . . . then I feel wet, and I realize there is.
-
I've read that several people - including my colleagues at work - complained about Vista's new look, Aero. I'm using Windows XP at the moment and I find the new XP skin much less of an eyesore compared to the 'classic' look. I like Vista's glassy look and I'm pretty sure many home users would love it too (that is if their PCs can run it). What I hate is that XP and Vista rearranged the furnitures, or so to speak, by moving the buttons/shortcuts/items around, grouping and presenting them in "smarter" way (e.g. Control Panel, File Search) - or so they think. So, let me ask you guys, what's wrong with Vista on the basis of new look only?
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
I generally like it, although I'm finding the new start menu to be a pain. Having said that, the "type a few characters and I'll find the command" thingy is useful. Other than that, I suspect the bane of our lives is going to be User Account Control (UAC). Unless Visual Studio is running with elevated privileges, registering an ATL DLL will result in E_ACCESSDENIED... X| I imagine that as more devs move over to Vista this is going to become one hot topic!
Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
-
I'd guess that a lot of people will buy Vista, THEN find they need a new video card/new processor. I also hate the way they move stuff around, I still use the classic start menu in XP.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Christian Graus wrote:
I also hate the way they move stuff around, I still use the classic start menu in XP.
You'll hate the control panel in vista so! I must say, the new start menu is one of my favourite things about vista. In particular, the run/search box at the end of the start menu is simply amazing. I don't think I've click on the all programs link in months and I never open the classic run box any more. Regading the hardware, see my reply to below: http://www.codeproject.com/lounge.asp?msg=1676889#xx1676889xx
Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
It requires a new computer plain and simple. I like my trusty Athlon XP 1800+ :->
As of how to accomplish this, have you ever tried Google?
Failing that try :badger::badger::badger:I have a Socket A Sempron at 1.8GHz and a GeForce FX 5200 w128MB and i can run vista fine, the only problem is with explorer's memory usage. Try using GeoShell, you can still get the glass, and some of geoshell's features dont work properley on vista but somebody will fix that sooner or later.
-
Edbert P wrote:
So, let me ask you guys, what's wrong with Vista on the basis of new look only?
The $3000 in new hardware to get the new look? Because it's just a new look, but the same or worse underneath? Because all it'll do is make my advertising experience better than TV? Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithMarc Clifton wrote:
The $3000 in new hardware to get the new look?
Well that is just complete bullshit Marc. I bought a new PC last March which cost me just over €1000 (around US$1240). The graphics card is the lowest spec in the new Nvidia 7000 range and Vista beta 2 and RC 1 run very fast (and AERO is perfect) and in some cases RC 1 is noticably faster than XP was. I also installed Vista Beta 2 on my fairly old Dell Inspiron 8600 laptop (1.5 Ghz Pentium M, 1GB ram, 64mb graphics card) and Vista ran perfectly fine and even with Aero. Haven't installed RC1 on it as the screen is broken. I'm guessing the people that are saying you need to spend loads on hardware simply haven't used it. I can't believe that those who did use Vista could have had such a different experience to myself regarding hardware and Aero.
Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
I've read that several people - including my colleagues at work - complained about Vista's new look, Aero. I'm using Windows XP at the moment and I find the new XP skin much less of an eyesore compared to the 'classic' look. I like Vista's glassy look and I'm pretty sure many home users would love it too (that is if their PCs can run it). What I hate is that XP and Vista rearranged the furnitures, or so to speak, by moving the buttons/shortcuts/items around, grouping and presenting them in "smarter" way (e.g. Control Panel, File Search) - or so they think. So, let me ask you guys, what's wrong with Vista on the basis of new look only?
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
The interface is almost cartoony. Its cluttered and too reliant on special effects and glitter rather than useability. General use is far more complicated than need be and although it will probably be fine for the home use with the effects and airy fairy looks, it will definately not be on the high list of needs in the business and corporate. Not clear and clean enough!
-
I've read that several people - including my colleagues at work - complained about Vista's new look, Aero. I'm using Windows XP at the moment and I find the new XP skin much less of an eyesore compared to the 'classic' look. I like Vista's glassy look and I'm pretty sure many home users would love it too (that is if their PCs can run it). What I hate is that XP and Vista rearranged the furnitures, or so to speak, by moving the buttons/shortcuts/items around, grouping and presenting them in "smarter" way (e.g. Control Panel, File Search) - or so they think. So, let me ask you guys, what's wrong with Vista on the basis of new look only?
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
I prefer the classic look, less complicated and takes up less space.
-
I prefer the classic look, less complicated and takes up less space.
-
I've read that several people - including my colleagues at work - complained about Vista's new look, Aero. I'm using Windows XP at the moment and I find the new XP skin much less of an eyesore compared to the 'classic' look. I like Vista's glassy look and I'm pretty sure many home users would love it too (that is if their PCs can run it). What I hate is that XP and Vista rearranged the furnitures, or so to speak, by moving the buttons/shortcuts/items around, grouping and presenting them in "smarter" way (e.g. Control Panel, File Search) - or so they think. So, let me ask you guys, what's wrong with Vista on the basis of new look only?
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
What's wrong with Vista? Bloat. I use the OS to launch programs and from there I'm productive. The new look is nice, but if everything takes longer to start because the OS needs more memory and more graphics power to operate, what's the point? When MS started integrating applications into the OS (i.e. internet explorer) all they did was create huge security holes. If I choose to use Firefox, I'll have wasted resouces because I'll have an unused browser on my system. The same is true with the Windows Firewall. So I think the question should be: What does Vista provide that it's worth upgrading from XP? If they could avoid the weekly critical updates that require my XP computer to be restarted, then it would be worth it to me. Only time will tell if that's going to be the case.
-
I've read that several people - including my colleagues at work - complained about Vista's new look, Aero. I'm using Windows XP at the moment and I find the new XP skin much less of an eyesore compared to the 'classic' look. I like Vista's glassy look and I'm pretty sure many home users would love it too (that is if their PCs can run it). What I hate is that XP and Vista rearranged the furnitures, or so to speak, by moving the buttons/shortcuts/items around, grouping and presenting them in "smarter" way (e.g. Control Panel, File Search) - or so they think. So, let me ask you guys, what's wrong with Vista on the basis of new look only?
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin Edbert Sydney, Australia
For me, it is simply that MS changed where the functionality is. They (understandably) have the wrong mindset about their OSs --they should be thinking of them as tools that other people use rather than a product unto itself. If they did, then they'd quit tinkering with the layout of the same old features and get on with making the underneath code more robust and more secure and make it do more things that actually have value to users. After all, I ask you, when was the last time any of us bought a computer simply so it could be used to run the OS and nothing more?
patbob
-
Everyone seems to be commenting, 'oh, I need a new computer', or, 'oh, it'll need really powerful hardware'. My experience with RC1 is that you don't. I installed RC1 on my existing home PC - a three-year-old homebrew. The only things I changed were a new hard disk (didn't want to repartition) and a new video card. I only changed the video card because the GeForce 4 Ti4800SE I had could not run Glass - and that's because it doesn't do DirectX 9 Shader Model 2.0 or some such, it simply wasn't capable. Now, I did a clean install - if you upgrade XP you may get a different experience.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
Yes. I got RC1 and installed it on my laptop. Works, although I don't seem to have all the whizzy UI modes. I did the same upgrade HD thing so I didn't have to overwrite XP. Good thing it didn't need a new video card to run :-) It does seem to keep the CPU at 8-10% utilization constantly (XP hovers around 2-3%). Can't see how that's a good thing, especially on a laptop when running on batteries. It also seems to have a lot more (needless) CPU-hungry features enabled by default. so yes, for the average user, they will need a faster machine just to keep similar performance.
patbob