Advertisement

(1 reply) #1 Posted by briangw on 09 Oct 2005 - 13:11

Looks good!

#1.1 Posted by Dark Elitist on 09 Oct 2005 - 18:11

Awesome! Very nice, very nice indeed. I look forward to seeing the finished product very much!

Mirror!

Microsoft Windows Vista Build 5231 Leaks
http://www.freeinternetsecurity.info/conte...uild-5231-leaks

(1 reply) #2 Posted by netizen on 09 Oct 2005 - 13:18

Hopefully we'll get another standalone IE7 installer for XP

#2.1 Posted by kl33per on 09 Oct 2005 - 13:19

Most likely not until IE7 Beta 2.

(1 reply) #3 Posted by Rob on 09 Oct 2005 - 13:24

I expect I'm late in seeing this, but I've just noticed that Internet Explorer is called "Windows Internet Explorer" in the title bar, and not "Microsoft Internet Explorer". Branding change?

#3.1 Posted by Rob on 09 Oct 2005 - 14:28

Yes... this was changed when they announced and released the new logo and I only just realised it. Move along, nothing to see here...

#4 Posted by King Mustard on 09 Oct 2005 - 13:24

Nice

(1 reply) #5 Posted by Homer™ on 09 Oct 2005 - 13:34

*sniggers at the site in the screenies*

#5.1 Posted by nwBen on 09 Oct 2005 - 13:56

*joins in*

#6 Posted by hixxydude on 09 Oct 2005 - 13:36

I want it now... that lovely eye candy..

(3 replies) #7 Posted by fergiej on 09 Oct 2005 - 13:46

Somebody has a bad tag. The song is NOT called Teenage Wasteland. It's Baba O'Reily. From Who's Next. Where'd you download that song? Bad boy...

#7.1 Posted by KZWings on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:34

Whats even better is that it has the Three Days Grace album cover there.

#7.2 Posted by [wild] on 09 Oct 2005 - 18:40

I was just about to say ..

#7.3 Posted by kl33per on 10 Oct 2005 - 02:31

So many people seem to get that wrong.

#8 Posted by hotdog963al on 09 Oct 2005 - 13:56

Oooo
Looking Good!

#9 Posted by Xtreme $niper on 09 Oct 2005 - 14:04

Wow that looks pretty good!

(3 replies) #10 Posted by kronik on 09 Oct 2005 - 14:05

I remember hearing that Vista will have a built in photo manager for importing from digital cameras and sorting etc. is this true?

#10.1 Posted by Julius Caro on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:21

Doesn't Windows XP have something similar already?

#10.2 Posted by BackWash on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:51

Microsoft Max ? http://www.microsoft.com/max/

#10.3 Posted by threedaysdwn on 09 Oct 2005 - 17:56

Max is NOT a part of Vista and is NOT even really a product.

It's a technology demo from a group at Microsoft that is researching advanced UIs, nothing more.

I'm pretty sure Vista's photo management capabilities have not yet been announced.

#11 Posted by SHoTTa35 on 09 Oct 2005 - 14:05

yeah looks real good... can't wait!!!

#12 Posted by webspot on 09 Oct 2005 - 14:11

I hope I'll be able to afford vista when it comes out

#13 Posted by Sprocket on 09 Oct 2005 - 14:11

Can't wait too

(3 replies) #14 Posted by Raven Ryan on 09 Oct 2005 - 14:17

Found more eye candies:

http://img277.imageshack.us/my.php?image=46zn.jpg
http://img277.imageshack.us/my.php?image=51po.jpg
http://img277.imageshack.us/my.php?image=68hb.jpg

*Not my screenshots. *

#14.1 Posted by HoochieMamma on 09 Oct 2005 - 14:42

Whats Windows Collaboration?

#14.2 Posted by todd` on 09 Oct 2005 - 14:46

http://img277.imageshack.us/my.php?image=46zn.jpg
http://img277.imageshack.us/my.php?image=51po.jpg
http://img277.imageshack.us/my.php?image=68hb.jpg

You should make them links next time

#14.3 Posted by Raven Ryan on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:08

Heh, sorry.

(2 replies) #15 Posted by lylesback2 on 09 Oct 2005 - 14:26

nice, those images are pretty sweet.. i guess this is beta 2?

#15.1 Posted by BBinder on 09 Oct 2005 - 14:29

i believe beta 2 is destined for the 1st december something like that, and these newest builds are based on the beta 2 code

#15.2 Posted by threedaysdwn on 09 Oct 2005 - 17:59

This is an interim build from the Beta 2 development branch. It is NOT beta 2. It is NOT an indication of beta 2's complete feature set.

(1 reply) #16 Posted by todd` on 09 Oct 2005 - 14:49

It's 5231, not 5321. The file is named wrong, and it says "Vista Build 5321 Screenshot 1"

#16.1 Posted by King Mustard on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:09

Fixed.

#17 Posted by Fubar on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:01

nice lets hope the final is stable

#18 Posted by alnuva on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:06

could anyone who has it rip the sound pack off it? please.

(1 reply) #19 Posted by Julius Caro on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:23

The "stop" button is there!! I wonder for how long...

AND I'M GLAD they put the adress bar where it belongs. I like the new audio mixer too

Keep screenshots coming1!

#19.1 Posted by threedaysdwn on 09 Oct 2005 - 18:01

IE7 beta 1 was never meant to be an indication of the final UI. I'm not even sure if this is the final IE7 look, although so far I like what I've seen

(1 reply) #20 Posted by Angel Blue01 on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:23

I actually like Media Player 11.

#20.1 Posted by lbmouse on 10 Oct 2005 - 14:49

<edit> I actually like forced DRM. </edit>

#21 Posted by mrk on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:25

omf!

(5 replies) #22 Posted by todd` on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:27

Why can't they follow their own UI guidelines and use a standard Windows frame for Media Player 11? Why must they make it so inconsistent with everything else?

#22.1 Posted by threedaysdwn on 09 Oct 2005 - 18:10

BETA



Say it with me...

B-E-T-A

BETA

#22.2 Posted by Fragmaster on 09 Oct 2005 - 21:58

Ehm, no. Media Player has been out of the UI guidelines since... WMP 7 I believe.

#22.3 Posted by Jugalator on 09 Oct 2005 - 23:39

Yep, that WMP has its very own nonstandard style has nothing to do with a beta status.
It seems to be rather how Microsoft wants it to be, looking at history.
It would be nice if that changed, but I'm not sure it will.

Last edited by 21023 on 09 Oct 2005 - 23:57

#22.4 Posted by threedaysdwn on 10 Oct 2005 - 05:15

Historically? Yes, WMP has used its own very unique UI design. A little like Messenger actually.

But my comment was suggesting that you shouldn't accuse WMP 11 of not following the UI guidelines when you haven't yet seen WMP 11's real UI.

#22.5 Posted by Zxian on 12 Oct 2005 - 17:14

WMP 7 through 9 used the standard Windows Frame for the full size player. In WMP10 they went with the crazy blue thingy and the standard window would appear if you hovered over it. If you don't like it, use the classic skin... problem solved!!!

(2 replies) #23 Posted by Cynicalsomething on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:29

Why does it say "Microsoft Vista Ultimate Edition"?????

#23.1 Posted by SHoTTa35 on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:36

WinSuperSite

dude, you're waaay behind... have a read

#23.2 Posted by Cynicalsomething on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:43

Lol...Yeah i figured i was. Thanks for link.

#24 Posted by Elmo on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:39

very cool

#25 Posted by Zolk on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:43

Visual style still looks dark and depressing.

#26 Posted by Hankyone on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:45

wonder if my sata drivers will work this time

(15 replies) #27 Posted by Shadrack on 09 Oct 2005 - 15:45

I think it looks like crap. Too many bevals and gradients, and really unprofessional looking IMO. I couldn't see everyone at work using this and taking their computer seriously.

The only thing that I think looks good are the rounded cornors, and the glass looks alright. WMP at least sorta fits into the theme, unlike WMP for Windows XP. But it still looks god awful.

Ahh well, the playschool Luna theme sucked for Windows XP when it came out too, but the theming community fixed my XP so it looks slick and professional. Hopefully we will have some decent looking themes come out of the community.

#27.1 Posted by SHoTTa35 on 09 Oct 2005 - 16:38

hey post a screenshot or pm me for my email address so you can email me a pic.. i wanna see your "professional" look

#27.2 Posted by EduardValencia on 09 Oct 2005 - 17:35

yeh,me too
PM me

#27.3 Posted by Shadrack on 09 Oct 2005 - 17:48

Apple's Mac OS X 10.3 and 10.4 has a really polished professional look. Yet still maintains a high level of useless "eye candy." The "ClearLooks" theme as well as a lot of the other themes for the Gnome user interface I think look very professional. Watercolor, OpusOS and the "Classic" VS themes for Windows XP are top notch.

Even the look and feel of Office XP/2003 have a real high standard.

This is just gaughty and makes me want to puke.

The only redeeming quality I can find are the icons. They have a really nice look to them. Definitly a step up from Windows XP icons.

If you really want me to send you screen shots of everything I just described, i will. But if you just look around you'll see lots of example of design that is better then this.

#27.4 Posted by Syphonic on 09 Oct 2005 - 18:01

I hope they do something serious to this interface for Beta 2. I have to agree, I think it looks appaling! None of the interface seems to fit together, it looks like some average themer just mashed stuff together. The icons are probably the worst part.

As long as I can get the Win 2k 'Classic' style like you can in XP and turn off all the eye-candy, animations etc.. Now that is a professional interface.

I know quite a few at neowin seem solely interested in the visuals and will probably buy (read: pirate) this operating system for the interface alone, but I want to see the 'theme' which actually balences the supposedly awesome functionality of Vista, without having the excessive form of the current interface we are seeing in these screenshots, and this isn't even the highest amount of eye candy interface is it?

Last edited by 58341 on 09 Oct 2005 - 18:09

#27.5 Posted by threedaysdwn on 09 Oct 2005 - 18:14

Really? I love where they're going with the Vista UI. I think you guys will like it more when you actually get to work with it, and you see more apps start to fit in with the new UI paradigm.

I like it *WAY* more than XP/Luna and OS X. I think both of those lack the professional look you're talking about.

When I heard Chris Pirillo say, "If they keep this up, this might actually get me out of Classic mode" - I knew Vista was going in the right direction.

#27.6 Posted by Vermiis Mysteriis on 09 Oct 2005 - 19:23

It was only a matter of time before some sheep started bleeting about OS X and Linux. *sigh*

No one cares, honestly. If they did, more people would be using those alternatives.

#27.7 Posted by Mr. Dee on 09 Oct 2005 - 19:44

I think what you are looking at in those screenies are pretty much the final ui. The only thing left is a bit of polishing here and there, probably better control panel applet dialogue layouts, examples include Sound and devices, speech and others, transparent parts where the black gloss is presently on the Start Menu. But there is nothing more to be done and people are gonna have to accept.

So, just relax and realize that Vista is more than just a ui, its the great things like search, 64-bit, ad-hoc networking and some other nice things that will make it a worth upgrade. But, just don't expect any radical or drastic for BETA 2 or the RTM.

#27.8 Posted by PCyr on 09 Oct 2005 - 22:13

@ Mr. Dee, everything you said is in fact the exact opposite of what the real situation MS said from day one that none of the GUIs would be close to the final one before beta 2.

#27.9 Posted by Shadrack on 09 Oct 2005 - 22:50

[quote=Mr. Dee]So, just relax and realize that Vista is more than just a ui, its the great things like search, 64-bit, ad-hoc networking and some other nice things that will make it a worth upgrade. But, just don't expect any radical or drastic for BETA 2 or the RTM.[/quote]

I think you are right. And besides, I'm sure there will be a strong theming community that will create the look I'm wanting. There will always be choice, and choice is good.

@Vermiis Mysteriis: I'm the sheep? Thanks for not contibuting to the conversation at all. (Freaken trolls...)

#27.10 Posted by Jugalator on 09 Oct 2005 - 23:43

QUOTE

MS said from day one that none of the GUIs would be close to the final one before beta 2.

Then they have a lot of things to do from September - December. I find that hard to believe, especially as I see polish in this new build starting to be made... To the existing UI. Now, why would they do both that and release UI guidelines for this design if the point was to throw it all away? I hope they'll surprise us though, as this still has an unpolished beta look all over it IMHO. Transparent borders is nothing like I imagined from a 3D accelerated desktop.

Last edited by 21023 on 09 Oct 2005 - 23:50

#27.11 Posted by Smigit on 10 Oct 2005 - 01:12

Why would they have alot to do? Microsoft doesnt put everything it has into the builds, just look at Beta 1. If there is indeed another theme or a more polished one (which I believe there will be and according to MS there should be), then its most likely very close to done or in some decent state, it just hasn't been put out yet.

Dont forget WHistlers Beta 1 theme was drastically different to what was seen later on. Also I saw those guidelines and while my memory is fuzzy I dont think it said anything specific to the theme as it stands now that couldnt apply if they did a new theme for beta 2. The guidelines as I recall were just basics like "use the windows UI for interfaces instead of custom ones" or something like that.

I do believe a new theme is on the way that will incorporate elements from what we have now.

#27.12 Posted by threedaysdwn on 10 Oct 2005 - 05:10

QUOTE

@ Mr. Dee, everything you said is in fact the exact opposite of what the real situation MS said from day one that none of the GUIs would be close to the final one before beta 2.

Actually, it's been said on Channel 9 that much of what you see will remain. There are things you haven't seen, but they're not huge. Lots of little things really. Some have been hinted at or accidentally shown in some screenshots.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if you see several different color/theme options before release (I'm speculating on that one).

#27.13 Posted by Jugalator on 10 Oct 2005 - 06:42

QUOTE

Dont forget WHistlers Beta 1 theme was drastically different to what was seen later on.

Don't forget Windows 95 that didn't, despite being a larger change in overall design than Vista.

QUOTE

Also I saw those guidelines and while my memory is fuzzy I dont think it said anything specific to the theme as it stands now that couldnt apply if they did a new theme for beta 2. The guidelines as I recall were just basics like "use the windows UI for interfaces instead of custom ones" or something like that.

They show a whole lot of graphical examples and most of the guide is used to tell how to use specific UI elements, and it's far more than "not using custom elements".

#27.14 Posted by Neomac v6 on 10 Oct 2005 - 15:36

Vermiis Mysteriis: Mac and Linux users are more likely to have made a conscious choice of operating system, and THEY'RE the sheep? In fact most people use Windows because they're ignorant of the alternatives and just use whatever comes on their PC.

As for Vista, the latest build is fugly as ever. Really, Bill Gates complains about other companies' "me too" products, when Vista's transparency overkill is the ultimate "me too".

#27.15 Posted by Foo Fighter on 11 Oct 2005 - 03:20

I'll never understand why so many people keep scream about how ugly the UI is. This is BETA code folks! It ain't what Vista is going to look like! The final UI will probably look NOTHING like what you see here. Microsoft usually withholds the ultimate GUI until final beta or Release candidate stages. Remember what "Whistler" (XP) looked like before Luna was officially unveiled in the final beta? It was what we know today as the "Watercolor" theme seen floating around the Visual style community.

Patience, young grasshopper. All will be revealed in time.

(5 replies) #28 Posted by Zhivago on 09 Oct 2005 - 16:41

Get Vista 5231 here

#28.1 Posted by obiwankenobi on 09 Oct 2005 - 16:41

funny

#28.2 Posted by JoDaddy on 09 Oct 2005 - 19:45

Halarious....

#28.3 Posted by bush on 09 Oct 2005 - 20:29

omg, that's the real thing!!!1one

#28.4 Posted by biznotch on 10 Oct 2005 - 13:36

nice one...

#28.5 Posted by cyber_rigger on 13 Oct 2005 - 14:56

That, of course, would be "Vista lite".

#29 Posted by frogworm on 09 Oct 2005 - 17:13

i'm surprised you guys didn't put the filename and size in the article this time

#30 Posted by jeff_pony on 09 Oct 2005 - 17:32

Anyone know where you can get that widescreen vista grass backdrop?

(9 replies) #31 Posted by frogworm on 09 Oct 2005 - 17:55

good ol' rendering problems of Microsoft websites in Opera..

#31.1 Posted by King Mustard on 09 Oct 2005 - 18:02

Get a better browser then. One that works.

#31.2 Posted by Zhivago on 09 Oct 2005 - 18:08

That's exactly why I've been using IE since Windows 95

#31.3 Posted by threedaysdwn on 09 Oct 2005 - 18:16

If IE, Firefox, and Safari/Konqueror all work... maybe that says something about your choice of browser?

#31.4 Posted by mr_demilord on 09 Oct 2005 - 19:32

No problem here.
The site renders perfect, maybe try a other browser.
Firefox 1.07

#31.5 Posted by rm20010 on 09 Oct 2005 - 20:20

All you people telling him to switch browsers, please Would the following screenshot help you STFU?



I could swear it looked broken a few weeks ago... must be Opera's browser JS that fixed it.

#31.6 Posted by bush on 09 Oct 2005 - 20:34

guys, calm down. you defend your browser as it were your penis.

#31.7 Posted by Jugalator on 10 Oct 2005 - 00:00

A comment about this from Opera:

QUOTE

The website has erroneous code, which Opera should not interpret, given the MIME type and the markup used. At the moment, it does. Handling of such invalid code is improved internally. The other good news is that Microsoft will attempt to repair the page on their own. The world is not black and white... M.

#31.8 Posted by Wedge2k on 13 Oct 2005 - 13:50

Mirosoft is an error, so is their site. I rarely have problems with opera rendering a page. Only sites it has the most problem with is crappy asp/x sites. At one point opera did render it correctly, then microsoft had to go a fux w/ it again.

For those of you fighting for IE, im sorry, you must like your viri and spyware.
Firefox is alright but slow and klunky, and most of its ideas were stemed from Opera.
Opera users, you rock, you know a good web browser, and it didnt have to hit your in the face.

Thats my $.02.

#31.9 Posted by rav0 on 14 Oct 2005 - 12:03

Wow, you are misinformed!

Oper can render Microsoft sites just as Internet Explorer can. However, for a long time, Microsuck, in its "hate Opera" campaign, has sent a different version of its webpages to Opera.

These would contain crippled stylesheets, which would look awful. The special version shown to Opera, looks malformed whether viewed in Opera, Internet Explorer, Netscape, and presumably most other browsers.

The normal version, which is served to Internet Explorer, and browsers which Microsoft doesn't recognise, looks perfect, whether viewed in Internet Explorer, Opera and many other browsers.

There si no need for a userjs fix to make the site display correctly, however, to access the normal, non-crippled, version of a page, Opera must cloak itself as Internet Explorer.

Note that the "Identify as" menu isn't good enough, as Opera is still detectable as being Opera, no matter what option you choose in this menu. Full cloaking must be done via the new ua.ini file, or using a (local) proxy to modify the HTTP request to the Server.

#32 Posted by MtDewCodeRedFreak on 09 Oct 2005 - 18:34

Looks sweet!

(2 replies) #33 Posted by divertom15 on 09 Oct 2005 - 18:37

Leaks? theres no public leak yet only screenshots so this could end up another 5203 build folks we know how that turned out

and this is not the same build that will be given to beta testers on connect later this month
that will be an idx02 build which will be missing many of these fetures. the new ie7 will be replaced with ie7 beta 1 and the wmp11 will be replaced with 10. i garentee that.

Last edited by 24166 on 09 Oct 2005 - 19:03

#33.1 Posted by MrCobra on 11 Oct 2005 - 05:19

It is out.

#33.2 Posted by roadwarrior on 12 Oct 2005 - 14:52

Yep, it showed up in the newsgroups a few hours ago.

#34 Posted by Vermiis Mysteriis on 09 Oct 2005 - 18:44

There's better (and more) screenshots elsewhere....*cough*HWG*cough*

#35 Posted by mad_onion on 09 Oct 2005 - 19:21

lol in the second screenie it say "Your copy of Windows is now genuine" lol

#36 Posted by Cyberkiller on 09 Oct 2005 - 20:13

Please PM me with any screenshots you find.

Thanks!

(10 replies) #37 Posted by 905punk on 09 Oct 2005 - 20:28

A screenshot of Vista running in Classic - I've got tons more screenshots from both Beta 1 and Build 5219 - But they were all posted when they were well, new

#37.1 Posted by Syphonic on 09 Oct 2005 - 20:44

Excellent. Now I am happy knowing I can turn all the stuff off

I want the features, I don't want their crazy attempt at a modern UI.

#37.2 Posted by Ravensworth on 09 Oct 2005 - 20:54

I hope there is a way to change the folder icons back to the normal ones instead of the stupid sideways folders. What made Microsoft go and do that? It looks like they are flipping me off.

#37.3 Posted by SMeK on 09 Oct 2005 - 21:58

Please edit that img so its smaller and link to the larger image

#37.4 Posted by Julius Caro on 09 Oct 2005 - 22:35

The sideways folder icon problems aren't that ugly.. but the small icon of them looks like an square with a finger or hand or a key or something on them... they dont look as if they were folders, lol.

#37.5 Posted by Litespeed on 09 Oct 2005 - 22:59

QUOTE

Excellent. Now I am happy knowing I can turn all the stuff off I want the features, I don't want their crazy attempt at a modern UI.

And the Win95 look is soooo cutting edge.

#37.6 Posted by ghos on 09 Oct 2005 - 23:10

I like the sideways folders, as it creates a different look. Change is good, some of us embrace change. We don't like being stuck in a rut. The small closed folder does look stupid I agree.

I can't understand why some people insist on staying with the classic mode and not using something modern. I guess those are the same people who still use a horse and buggy to get around. I agree the Luna look was rather dreadful for a default look, but the current styling of Vista is much cleaner. To each their own though if you want to use a boring computer as long as I'm not forced to do so.

#37.7 Posted by Ravensworth on 10 Oct 2005 - 02:05

It's called personal preference. Some people think the classic theme looks better than the new flashy stuff, I'm one of them. I don't use an OS because it's "pretty", I use it to get work done. Besides, I think that the new purple colors and stuff are rather ugly. Just because I prefer the classic theme though doesn't mean I use a horse and buggy; that's a ridiculous statement. I also don't think it's boring, and who said anything about forcing you to use it? No one is forcing you to use Windows at all, let alone a certain theme. Sheesh...

#37.8 Posted by mram on 10 Oct 2005 - 03:02

I personally believe that when someone bad-talks the entire OS because the UI, in its default incarnation, is not the kind of UI they personally like, that they have some kind of problem with perception.

Sure, there are things I don't like about the UI. Don't you think it's more important that it's customizable at all? It's amazing stuff that Stardock has done with XP alone. Don't you think they'll be able to exploit the engine behind the UI much more impressively in Vista? Isn't that the real important point here?

Everyone is so fixated on the painting that they can't see they they're holding the easel and a fresh canvas themselves. You shouldn't care that the UI looks like 95, 3.1, or XP. You should care that it's more customizable than those operating systems, with a much more reasonable use of system resources.

#37.9 Posted by Syphonic on 10 Oct 2005 - 16:26

QUOTE

And the Win95 look is soooo cutting edge.

Did you even bother to read my post? You clearly didn't understand it...so I'll try to be more black and white:

I think the UI seen in the Vista betas looks crap, I prefer the Win95/2k/XP Classic whatever you want to call it. Did I say the 95/2l/XP Classic look was cutting edge and modern? No I did not. I said it was a more professional interface. Why do I think this? Because it doesn't have a crap-load of pointless gimmicky effects and animations, it's clean, quick and faster to use.

Just so you don't go off on a retarded rant here: That is my personal opinion. Sorry, but while you may disagree with it, you cannot say I am 'wrong' for preferring one UI style over another. Whether you like it or not, when(if) I do switch to Vista, I will use the most cut-down, tack-less interface MS are offering me.

Just so other people don't go off on a rant: I agree with Ravensworth. I'm not bad talking Vista as a whole, I'm just bad-talking the UI which is not to my personal tastes.