[Silentheero]

The new Windows Vista is not all that impressive for being 5 years superior to XP. The Avalon graphics is just eating up resources and Indigo is not going to be noticable to end-users. The ui is not much different from xp, but the security in Vista is probably absurdly invasive, making xp seem like a walk in the park. Does anyone else think so?

[Advertisements]

I think it will be a great upgrade. Especially in areas that we deal with a lot on this site -- malware. Don't rush to judgment. Beta 1 is due in August, but it will probably be beta 2 before we get a good feel for what the final product will be like.

[admin]

I think it will be a great upgrade. Especially in areas that we deal with a lot on this site -- malware. Don't rush to judgment. Beta 1 is due in August, but it will probably be beta 2 before we get a good feel for what the final product will be like.

[samiko]

viruses already produced for vista even before its release! That says so much about it.

[Silentheero]

And Microsoft is releasing this version for security!

[warriorscot]

What does the fact they are making viruses for it prove, they are getting started now what did you guys think they would just give up making viruses lol. They are always goin to make them its how the OS handles them and how much damage it can prevent and on that front vista looks promising.

[Guse]

The new Windows Vista is not all that impressive for being 5 years superior to XP. The Avalon graphics is just eating up resources and Indigo is not going to be noticable to end-users. The ui is not much different from xp, but the security in Vista is probably absurdly invasive, making xp seem like a walk in the park. Does anyone else think so?

The UI, especially considering folder browsing, is considerably improved. The ability to switch through subfolders and whatnot without hitting BACK or UP 200 times is a massive upgrade.

As for graphics eating up resources, why do people care about this so much? Microsoft has always included way to reduce or eliminate the graphic improvements. In XP, the process took about 30 seconds.

I've used Vista for some time now and, after getting used to new icons it's just as easy to use as XP. As for the security being invasive, I'm fine with that as long as it's transparent.

[Silentheero]

Ok some questions and a rant...

Is there a way to try the beta 1 without being MSDN or a IT pro? Or do I have to wait for the public beta 2? And when is it supposed to be released?
Windows has taken up a bigger and bigger footprint every release. How much room does the beta use?

Security is a big issue for me, I guess Im a conspiracy theorist/big brother watcher, whatever, but the less I have to report to Microsoft the better.

I complain about the graphics because a lot of resources are used for little things that you don't notice, and I know it can be turned off easly but I think the time used developing there could be put to better use on other things, like the file system.

And it takes Firefox gobbling up more than 10-15% of the market share for Microsoft to realize that IE needed work. But I'l stick to the underdog, and if I could find a way to play and work on linux, I would. <Stepping down off soapbox>

[Guse]

Ok some questions and a rant...

Is there a way to try the beta 1 without being MSDN or a IT pro? Or do I have to wait for  the public beta 2? And when is it  supposed to be released?

I'm not sure, but not that I'm aware of.
And, which... beta 2 or gold?

Windows has taken up a bigger and bigger footprint every release. How much room does the beta use?

It had to be put on a DVD-ROM. Take that for what you will.

Security is a big issue for me, I guess Im a conspiracy theorist/big brother watcher, whatever, but the less I have to report to Microsoft the better.

If you insist. Seems to me that would be the only way they'd really know what's wrong...

I complain about the graphics because a lot of resources are used for little things that you don't notice, and I know it can be turned off easly but I think the time used developing there could be put to better use on other things, like the file system.

I suppose that's a fair argument, but if video games have taught me anything it's that most people prefer a prettier package to content... hence why Madden always outsold 2K.

And it takes Firefox gobbling up more than 10-15% of the market share for Microsoft to realize that IE needed work. But I'l stick to the underdog, and if I could find a way to play and work on linux, I would.  <Stepping down off soapbox>

I've always thought that there was a problem rooting for the underdog for simply the sake that it's the underdog. Microsoft is a fine company that in it's tenure has been a major contributing factor in a total renisance (sp?) of computing.

Yes, they're anti-competetive and the very definition of a monopoly, but they got there by doing what they do better than everyone else.

Linux is neato and I hope to God they eventually get popular, but right now they're nothing more than the ham radio of the IT world.

[Silentheero]

Yes, I agree about Microsoft. At the same time though, its only competition that drives them. Only when Firefox became popular did MS see that there was something there that consumers wanted. Back when Macs whistled and farted, MS saw that the consumers wanted sound. Microsoft has been the leader because it had money to throw at whatever project they were working on (look at Windows ME )Linux threatens them because it is completely customizable and can be tailor made to the student/end user/business user. MS knows though that a lot of that customization needs to be done by that user though, and is safe for now. But when you see linux get popular and become user friendly to customize and use, MS will scramble to copy the competition, which they have done from the begining. Without competition, MS would not improve on their software and systems (there would be no reason to) and could not because they would not have anyone to copy from.

BTW- I am just initiating friendly conversation, no malice.

[Guse]

No malice taken. figured it was a debate and boy I'm up to one...

Linux is a great system for someone that knows what they're doing. There's virtually no driver support for hardware and software installations can be an absolute pain in the butt.

For all of MS's problems, they've absolutely mastered drivers. Just nailed them. Hardware installation and PnP is beyond simple now.

Linux may end up pushing Microsoft, but I honestly don't see it. It's too raw. There are some more user friendly Linux's out there (Linspire, for instance) but those are generally scoffed at by the Linux community at large, who by-and-large have adopted the Macintosh "holier than thou" attitude and would abandon the OS flat if it ever "sold out" and became corporate.

Heh... I just described punk music fans.

oh well. I guess I've made my point... as rambling-ly as can be.

[Silentheero]

I completely agree with you with the drivers. But if you try Knoppix, the Linux on CD, was very simple. It found the right drivers and used them automatically before starting the system. It even found a hard drive that windows didnt pick up.

Do you think that between Linux becoming easier to use and the way the next generation of users will be more computer literate, that they will embrace Linux as their OS of choice? When updates become a constant thing with Windows and the threat of viruses, malware, and buisness looking over your shoulder, I would think that the tech-people of the gen and all of the next gen would use different forms of getting the information they want, without the hassle and stress.

[Guse]

The next generation is also savvy enough to realize that the major reason that Linux is more secure is because it simply isn't worth programmers' time to write a Linux virus just yet... ditto Firefox.

So, no, I don't think that security will end up being an overriding reason people switch operating systems. I think that in order for Linux to actually begin competing on any major level, it must solve its hardware/software compatability issues. Granted, all that will come with more Linux exposure, but until then it's nothing more than a toy for the uber-l33t.

Is Knoppix a business solution, though? I'm honestly not that familiar with it (which is to say that I know that it exists)...

[cyberCrank]

One down, two to go, WinFS is out, ... I think the time used developing there could be put to better use on other things, like the file system ...

WinFS was down for the count, but not a TKO yet

I was rather please to see:

Microsoft surprised developers on Monday by releasing a test version of a new Windows file system...

And to find:

WinFS is the codename for Microsoft’s next-generation relational file system for Windows. As an essential piece of Microsoft’s Integrated Storage strategy, WinFS bridges the gap between file systems and databases and provides a unified, rich programming platform for all data: structured, semi-structured, and unstructured. With WinFS, Developers will be able to use its unified Item Data Model across applications, present new relational organization constructs for data, and create applications that exploit data more powerfully. WinFS is a development platform that will improve developer productivity and reduce organizations’ time to market.

WinFS Beta1 requires the 2.0.50215.322 version of the .Net Framework...

So maybe we will see it "available" for Vista after all, watching and waiting while we do some related testing...

I have loved NTFS, but WinFS will likely be an add-on to Windows initially (the beta works on XP test systems now ), and likely delivered much like Microsoft ships its .Net Framework today via Win-Updates, etc. ...

Those of us who lived through the dog-days of DOS and all the early versions of Windows (betas, golds, and servers too) realize how far Windows has come (and it was a long time coming IMO around Win2K it became most useful because of reliability and stability measures by design, but then the expanding Internet and security and all this Malware exposed "us" to many weaknesses). Having worked on PDPs, RT-11, RSX, VAX/VMS (11/780, VaxStations, etc.) early on, I saw Dave Cutler (he's my man ) join up with Microsoft early on and watched his activity and it peeked my interest in Microsoft and NT early on (again, even more so, after also having used DOS and early Windows *.* in the lab and office environments). Not until NT, and especially Win2000, and then WinXP and 2003 did we really start seeing the benefits and power of NT (3, 4, 5, 5.1, 2003, etc., and now Dave's new work on 64-bit stuff...). Microsoft has blazed many trails and many ride in their wake IMO (but don't get me wrong, there are other good OS's too), but they (Microsoft guys) have room for improvements (and they have not slowed down). Reliability, stability, and security always trump features, functions, and performance, and this has to be built in from the ground up as an integral part of the system, and this is where Microsoft initially compromised and let integrated features out weigh security (in some respects), but they are indeed working to resolve these short comings IMO...

In time, as they clean up security for Windows (Vista cored on 2003's subsystems) and introduce the new features, Vista will be a significant and good upgrade for XP guys (users and developers will all benefit IMO)...

Edited by cyberCrank, 10 September 2005 - 12:44 PM.

[warriorscot]

I can be considered a young techno savvy computer user, they are a completely integral part of my life, and when i use it i dont want to be mucking around trying to get something done windows does in a single click i cant be bothered. The guys making vista know there target audiance we have nice powerful computers and we want them to look nice and be easy to use.

At the moment linux is what to use on a system thats a bit older and could do with freeing up some resources for other things. And thats about all just because people are savvy enough to work it doesnt mean they want to. I am one of the few people of my age that remeber how to use DOS(vaguely been a long while since i had to work with it) even then i used dos shell alot to make my life easier(i would still use it if i could find it would be great for running your high end games) a feature built into vista is the crash down to DOS for game playing this OS is much more game freindly than XP.

And drivers well what can you say, i dont want to go back to the days before PnP it makes life so much easier.