Recommended Posts

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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 by wildchildx

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
    • Apple Watch Series 11 GPS just crashed to 30% off in this fast-moving Prime Day deal by Karthik Mudaliar The Apple Watch Series 11 is available for $279, down from its $399 list price, saving buyers $120, or 30%. Amazon labels the offer as selling fast, so the current price may not remain available for long. This GPS model features a 42mm aluminum case, an Always-On Retina LTPO3 OLED display capable of reaching up to 2,000 nits, and an Ion-X glass surface with improved scratch resistance. Apple rates Series 11 for up to 24 hours of normal use or up to 38 hours in Low Power Mode, with fast charging providing up to eight hours of use from a 15-minute charge. Health and fitness tools include sleep scoring, temperature sensing, ECG support, heart-rate alerts, workout tracking, sleep apnea notifications, and hypertension notifications, where available. The watch also carries IP6X dust resistance and 50-meter water resistance. This configuration is best suited to iPhone owners who want comprehensive health tracking, notifications, contactless payments, and workout data without stepping up to a larger or cellular-equipped model. The smaller case should also appeal to buyers who prefer a lighter watch, while the S/M band fits wrists measuring 130mm to 180mm. With the current generation now significantly below its usual retail price, this is a strong time to replace an aging Apple Watch or buy a first model without compromising on Apple’s newest health and display features. Grab the discounted Apple Watch Series 11 (sold and shipped by Amazon) Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      460
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!