Microsoft Windows Vista

By Hurmoth
in The Fast Ring (Insider Previews)

 Share

What's your take on the name?  

985 members have voted

  1. 1. What's your take on the name?

    • Awesome
      124
    • Alright
      371
    • Horrible
      397
    • Undecided
      93

Recommended Posts

Enthusiast

Pry

Posted
Posted

Oh God, Micro$oft is always copying Apple. Just compare MacOS X (ten) and Win VI (six). Looks kinda silly a little bit :)

But that's Micro$oft as we know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Mx

Posted
Posted
Oh God, Micro$oft is always copying Apple. Just compare MacOS X (ten) and Win VI (six). Looks kinda silly a little bit :)

But that's Micro$oft as we know it.

586272737[/snapback]

What you on about? God sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enthusiast

Pry

Posted
Posted
What you on about? God sake.

586272771[/snapback]

Well, Apple first started using the Roman numbering system saying MacOS Version 10 is MacOS X actually (and that looks great by the way IMHO). Then M$ released Windows XP (by the way, notice the "high-tech" letter X is also present in the name lol).

Now WinVI (a short name for Windows Vista) which as M$ representatives say is Win6...

That's radiculous, Micro$soft, stop envying Apple :DD

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Community Regular

child998

Posted
Posted

Windows Vista is not just a radom name as many think on here, it mean's in Spanish a 'pleasing view'. And the main feature of the next operating system is its new graphic design. So I believe that is quite a creative name. Ok it doesn't sound the best. But I believe when you use the operating system the name will mean nothing to you anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enthusiast

Pry

Posted
Posted
Windows Vista is not just a radom name as many think on here, it mean's in Spanish a 'pleasing view'. And the main feature of the next operating system is its new graphic design. So I believe that is quite a creative name. Ok it doesn't sound the best.  But I believe when you use the operating system the name will mean nothing to you anymore.

586272891[/snapback]

That's all true

But, again, I'm not an Apple fan, I use PC, but the question is, why Apple makes creative things, why they've made a really pretty looking OS and gave it a nice yet attractive, yet bit sci-fi name MacOS X and Micro$oft with all their money couldn't even make a nice visual style IMHO Luna is terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

wutang01

Posted
Posted

Ok. I'm over it now. I'll get use to the name.

At least Windows is naming it a name. Not a numerical model number or something (Nokia 7610 for example)

What I care now ... is the features :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Proficient

DG55

Posted
Posted

Why does anyone care what it looks like, at least Luna is a faster interface than OS X. And with the whole X prefix thing, surely thats getting a bit tiresome now, putting an X next to somthing and calling it a name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enthusiast

Pry

Posted
Posted
Why does anyone care what it looks like

586273121[/snapback]

Cause it's a commercial product, it should look good
at least Luna is a faster interface than OS X.

586273121[/snapback]

:) Well, probably you tried running OSX on the old G3 with no hardware acceleration. Frankly, have you ever tried running MacOS X? :)

Besides, the word Vista sounds a lot like Whistler :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

Jeremy1

Posted
Posted
I've run it on dual processor G5s and emacs. Its irrelevant, the interface is always slower than XP.

586273550[/snapback]

I have to agree. I won't argue that the OS X interface isn't "pretty", but it sure isn't fast. XP screams compared to OS X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enthusiast

Pry

Posted
Posted
I have to agree.  I won't argue that the OS X interface isn't "pretty", but it sure isn't fast.  XP screams compared to OS X.

586273686[/snapback]

So maybe you just do not like the animation effects? Yeah, it is annoying sometimes...

Okay, anyway, we'll have to wait and see how M$ will make the same slow interface in Windows Whi... Sorry, Vista... :)

And by the way, Luna is not the thing that makes windows appear slower or faster, that's a visual style. The default Windows XP visual style is ugly, that's what I meant...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

Jeremy1

Posted
Posted
So maybe you just do not like the animation effects?

586273740[/snapback]

Maybe you just can't understand that we don't all worship Apple, and that we really think the OS X interface is slow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enthusiast

Pry

Posted
Posted
Maybe you just can't understand that we don't all worship Apple, and that we really think the OS X interface is slow?

586273754[/snapback]

Calm down please! :) Do you want to say that I worship Apple? That's not true. But my thought is that MacOS X is more technologically advanced today:

1. Does WindowsXP have the Quarz Extreme analog?

No, WinFX is only expected in 2006 as a part of WinVI

2. Does WindowsXP have the Spotlight analog?

No, WinFS is expected to be shipped in 2007 or probably later...

Just the facts, sorry... I've got a PC, and I don't plan to switch. Yet I must say that the Visual Studio .NET is an amazing thing for instance. And Micro$oft shouldn't be that slow :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Proficient

DG55

Posted
Posted

Ok. But what have any of your points got to do with the slow OSX interface?

You just made the yourself look worse, bringing up totally unrelated comparative points to fuel your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enthusiast

Pry

Posted
Posted (edited)
Ok. But what have any of your points got to do with the slow OSX interface?

You just made the yourself look worse, bringing up totally unrelated comparative points to fuel your argument.

586274734[/snapback]

The thing is you see that we compare two different things, we compare two absolutely different rendering engines. MacOS X as we all perfectly know uses 3D acceleration to render the desktop and WindowsXP uses 2D acceleration. It's like if you decide to compare old VW Golf and F1 (and it doesn't matter what OS is F1 and what is VW here). These two cars are used to do different tasks, you know. If we are talking about the comparison think it's better to compare WindowsXP and MacOS 9 because they both use 2D. And, well, in case of WinXP-OSX comparison, of course WindowsXP interface will be faster 'cause literally it does less.

So even if the MacOS X interface is slow (I haven't noticed it though) it's more technologically advanced anyway. And we'll have to wait till the Vista will arrive to compare them. Actually as I said before I do not plan to switch to MacOS X (or it's good to say that I'll better wait 'till MacOS X will make a switch on Intel first lol ) so I look forward to see the perfect and fast 3D interface in Vista. I really do! :)

Peace, mates! :)

Edited by Pry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enthusiast

Pry

Posted
Posted (edited)
Oh so typical, though! "even if OSX is slow, its more advanced", completely avoiding the point.

586275120[/snapback]

And what's the point, sorry? What do you want me to say?

I've said that:

...in case of WinXP-OSX comparison, of course WindowsXP interface will be faster 'cause literally it does less.
And yet, I agree that PowerPC stuff is slower in general, but let's wait for the X86 MacOS X...

And again, as for the WinXP-MacOSX comparison, let's better compare Tetris and say Doom3. :) Yes I agree that Doom3 is slower, especially on the machines intended to run Tetris lol.

Edited by Pry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.