Windows Vista: an XP Evolution

[RootWind]

The future of Windows Vista doesn't look too good. First of all, a lot of companies are just now merging to Windows XP Pro and Windows 2003. It took me a long time to dump Windows 2000 for XP Pro. What makes Microsoft think companies are going to just drop XP to get into Vista? After they spent thousands of dollars switching to XP, you really think they are going to spend thousands more to get into a new, full of bugs, OS?. It really bothers me a lot because Microsoft hasn't even finished stabilizing XP and correcting all of its aweful bugs and security issues and they are already thinking about releasing a new OS that, chances are, will have more bugs and security issues than Windows 2000 and XP combined.

What Microsoft should have done is improve XP and release a more stable and secure XP with new features instead of creating a new OS with useless crap and visuals that will only slow the system down.

586298569[/snapback]

Uhh... isn't that the point. If companies are just now switching to XP, because they finally deem it stable enough. Wouldn't Vista be a lot more stabler when they meet their next upgrade cycle? What if Vista didn't exist? Do you think companies will instantly buy up Vista if it didn't come up for another 4-6 years? I am sure MS does not spend all that money and all that time so they can build something they will sell in one month.

Does it say anywhere that you have to use the new visuals? No.

And great job generalizating about an unreleased product having more bugs and security issues than Windows 2000 and XP combined.

I am sure MS does not want to just "stick around" with a refined XP, and not even try to compete with everyone else.

[Hellgod]

The future of Windows Vista doesn't look too good. First of all, a lot of companies are just now merging to Windows XP Pro and Windows 2003. It took me a long time to dump Windows 2000 for XP Pro. What makes Microsoft think companies are going to just drop XP to get into Vista? After they spent thousands of dollars switching to XP, you really think they are going to spend thousands more to get into a new, full of bugs, OS?. It really bothers me a lot because Microsoft hasn't even finished stabilizing XP and correcting all of its aweful bugs and security issues and they are already thinking about releasing a new OS that, chances are, will have more bugs and security issues than Windows 2000 and XP combined.

What Microsoft should have done is improve XP and release a more stable and secure XP with new features instead of creating a new OS with useless crap and visuals that will only slow the system down.

586298569[/snapback]

you are missing the point, the hardware companies have so surpased the capabilityies of the OS Microsoft want's to release a fancy new OS to gain the use of all this fancy hardware... by the time this is released it will still be ou dated by standard hardware. Personaly, i dont think M$ cares if it sells well or not, it just gives them a reason to discontinue windows xp, and force the move.. so everyone is on a modern pc, i mean for god sake xp runs on a 233mmx with 64mb ram!

[B1gDaddy87]

Well all that is great. And about the Sidebar... I personally think it was a great feature, something that made the Longhorn OS different, distinguished it in a way, as well as all of the other new features. Course there could be much to be improved, the Sidebar shouldn't just be a place, where to keep your quick launch shortcuts. I don't agree that Microsoft did the right thing by dropping the project, and hope that we will see the Sidebar in the final version of Vista

[XIII]

The sidebar won't be in Vista anymore. Microsoft engineers said that they dropped it for good.

The Mac Statistics I got from interviewing 10 friends of mine and take the percentage. It is not a very good statistic but it pretty much tell what we users want from an OS.

[theyarecomingforyou]

And about the Sidebar... I personally think it was a great feature, something that made the Longhorn OS different, distinguished it in a way, as well as all of the other new features. Course there could be much to be improved, the Sidebar shouldn't just be a place, where to keep your quick launch shortcuts. I don't agree that Microsoft did the right thing by dropping the project, and hope that we will see the Sidebar in the final version of Vista

586298915[/snapback]

As I see it a sidebar takes up a lot of space in order to give you a bit of novelty junk. If most monitors were widescreen then I think it could be immensely useful, but as it is it would most likely just mean you have less space on screen for what you want to do. I don't see how it's anymore useful that building that functionality into the taskbar and having an option for it take up more space.

Having said that, it's always good having things like that as an option for the people that want it. We will have to see if it gets brought back into Vista, but I have a feeling the rest of the features being added will be more worthwhile.

[XIII]

Sidebar doesn't take lots of space. To be precise, it even help you use space more efficiently.

If you log into www.yahoo.com or www.msn.com, you will see lots of free space on the left and right of your screen, the sidebar will only utilize those wasted space.

Besides, you can resize it though.

[B1gDaddy87]

yep, I fully agree

[vcv]

It's been already some time since the Windows Vista Beta 1 has been released and now there's a thing, that puzzles my mind. When you look at Vista, the first thing you see is Aero Visual Style.

When the idea of a new version of Windows, Longhorn at the time was just beggining to arise, and the first alpha build screenshots were just delivered to the users judgement i was simply blown away. It looked so cool, it looked so different.

There was a sidebar, the look changed alltogether, it was something else.

Now, what do I see after these years of development? I see Windows XP, a bit redesigned, with glass effects added and so on. But the core is still there. There's no sidebar anymore, the Start Menu is the same, and once again, as with XP, Microsoft is trying to stick everything they can into it.

586297425[/snapback]

Wow, are you serious? The first screenshot shows a much bigger change from XP than the second screenshot. The second is just a new theme and a sidebar. The first is a new graphics subsystem, new theme, and a redesigned explorer.

People don't seem to understand the amount of work going into Vista. They haven't added so many new things and rewritten so many existing components since Windows 95.

The things that remain the same and will remain the same are not because Microsoft does not want to innovate, or that they're lying to use and just giving a slight face lift. There are certain things they simply CANT change for compatibility reasons. Think about it. You can still run applications written for Windows 95, and even some written for Windows 3.1. When an app does break in a new version, the vendor can fix it usually just by changing a few small things (and is likely their fault in the first place).

Microsoft deserves credit for the level of compability they have provided between different versions of windows over the years.

[Dazzeh]

I agree, people seem quick to critize yet they're actually doing something...

Especially in the early stages you cannot judge a product...

Its like saying a baby will grow up to be a bum on the street =/

[golazo]

people like this thread starter ****ing **** me off, it's called a BETA it's not final there is still over a year to the release and microsoft themselves have said most of the visual changes will come around beta 2 which is in november

[wildchildx]

The things that remain the same and will remain the same are not because Microsoft does not want to innovate, or that they're lying to use and just giving a slight face lift.? There are certain things they simplyCANT> change for compatibility reasons.? Think about it.? You can still run applications written for Windows 95, and even some written for Windows 3.1.? When an app does break in a new version, the vendor can fix it usually just by changing a few small things (and is likely their fault in the first place).

Microsoft deserves credit for the level of compability they have provided between different versions of windows over the years.

586301802[/snapback]

its not even so much that. when you work in the technical support field you realise that the mass user base does not want things to be be drastically different. they want things to operate the same way that they are used to with minimal difference and a minimal learning curve. the average computer user is an idiot and can't find their start button or the power button, doesn't know the difference between a computer and a monitor, or even what a power cord is. these people won't be buying anything new if it doesn't work just like they are used to, and if they do it turns into a major tech support nightmare. keeping things the same will mean more people will be willing to jump into it and spend money on it because they won't have to learn something completely different, but be able to do the same things the same way they were, with the option to access new features. businesses don't want to spend money retraining all of their employees if they decide to upgrade. they want them to continue their jobs with minimal headaches and minimal expense (buying every computer a license for a windows upgrade is expensive enough). this, i feel, is one of the major reasons why linux isn't a more common workstation os today (but that is obviously another topic).

microsoft doesn't have to make all kinds of bells and whistles to satisfy you *points to Ilya*. lots of other people do, and will continue to do so. microsoft only needs a stable core with potential, the ability to add-on, and enough eye-candy to make it competitive and look different out of the box. the rest is up to you. that's the joy of computers. if you want a sidebar there are many alternatives out there that are better than the crap that was included in the early longhorn betas. as far as i'm concerned, the sidebar was a horrible idea and a horrible waste of screen real-estate. a complete step in the wrong direction. what they are doing now looks much more amazing to me.

Edited July 31, 2005 by wildchildx

[Rodrigo]

^ Amen!

[blowMeNeo]

Whistler/XP's first beta looked just like a '98/ME combo with a few extra ooo's and ahhh's. You all need to chill. My Microsoft Rep told me, without going into detail, that Vista would "rock" and barely resemble the beta when its released.

[B1gDaddy87]

Well, I hope so. I too really want to see what the final product will look like, especially if all those thing that are promised, will come true. Don't get me wrong, I know where my PC's power cord is, and i know what's the difference between a computer and it's monitor, but when it comes to MS Windows and the things that should appear in the product as promised, and those that now don't for some reasons... Well, here I'm an end-user and a customer in the first place, and the only thing I care about from this point, is just getting the most exciting and cool Windows ever. and how they make it, it's not my problem, as long as everything works as it's supposed to.

[kaffra]

i didnt like the aero theme, the transparency is annoying especially when you have some other window with writtings behind it. The way boxes pop up is kinda irritating.

but my or your UI prefrence isnt in the scope for beta1.

[B1gDaddy87]

Well, according to Paul Thurrott, the sidebar is ack in Windows Vista. So I guess it's not a such useless thing after all... :D :happy: