There is a lot of hype and excitement over Windows Vista and it's features. The things I am reading here is making me really excited. Anyone know if any of this stuff is true?
http://www.strengholt-online.nl/
http://www.vista-guide.com/
And what is the name of their file system? Will Vista still be using NTFS or will it be using WinFS? Some are even saying something about a TxF filesystem, a small edition to the NTFS.
I am a Windows fan, and anything I don't like I can have changed. I like Linux as well (particularly Unbuntu, I haven't tried anything else) but it's not something that's completely out of reach with Windows XP capabilities.
ID:185051
 May 11 2006, 2:45 am
|
|
Strange. All the places I've been (Slashdot, when I've seen an interesting nex title from Googles RRS reader in GMail), seem to think all the good features they've promised in the beginning were left out.
I've never been a fan of operating systems, except Windows 2k and SlackWare. Microsoft went too far with XP and the system specs it needed (I personally know it runs on a Pentium 2, with 64Meg of RAM), but you couldnt run much else. Now they are planning on releasing Vista (Which IMO, seems to go further than XP), yet still heven't provided a decent Shell environment, or a GUI that isn't embedded so far into the kernal it's not funny. | |
Heh, google video had a good one where they took Bill Gates talking about vista and replaced vista with OSX, and the sad thing is that OSX met every high point he mentioned 100%. Really though, XP does come close already, and with a few 3rd party modifications, it can match all the visual high-points of Vista.
| |
Visual, yes. I don't really like the GUI of Vista much better than XP, other than the colors and such, but I can do that all already.
I do hope they have one of those bars like the MacOSX, or better yet, Stardock's version. I love Stardock's version, with it's options and tabbing capability and such. And to SilkWizard, the only thing I like about the MacOSX other than the GUI is.. nothing. I've had a very bad experience with them before. This link pretty much explains my experience. http://www.planetboredom.net/video.php?id=479 And just for the completion of this post. http://mac-sucks.com/ | |
I tried stardock's version, I found it impractical at the very least. It looked nice, it just didn't function very well as a replacement for the taskbar. From what I have seen, they are keeping the taskbar. I found that doubling the size of my taskbar gave a very similar feeling as a dock, but with the same taskbar functionality. To put it simply, XP just isn't made for something like that, and it doesn't do well with it.
One thing I would like to see Microsoft do is NOT require signed styles, as they have with XP. It really hampers customizing when you have to break Windows to change its looks. | |
CaptFalcon33035 wrote:
And to SilkWizard, the only thing I like about the MacOSX other than the GUI is.. nothing. I've had a very bad experience with them before. To each his own. I own both a Mac and a PC, and I use them for different stuff. I personally feel that there is no comparing the two when it comes to reliability and intuitive design. Plus, Final Cut Studio is the most amazing software suite that I've ever used. | |
There are a couple of interesting things in there, like the alleged symbolic links, and the ability for hardware drivers to run in user mode instead of kernel mode. (Translation: [some] drivers will no longer blue-screen when they crash! huzzah! And you should be able to upgrade them without rebooting, finally.)
On paper it does appear to be an improvement over XP, but I'm not particularly excited. It's hard to get excited over an operating system. =)