Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Windows Vista Beta 1 and Tiger

??

somewhere_here0 said:
I'm certain it's better than Tiger, but what about Leopard? Will see
Click to expand...

YOU CALL YOURSELF A MAC FAN!!!

jezuz, it may have a few things that may seem better than tiger, but it will never BE better than tiger. windoze will always have its viruses spyware and adware problems and that is enuf to beat out any pluses it may have on tiger.
 
AnAppleADay said:
The thing about windows is that it has FEW good qualities...the problem is that its good qualities are sometimes essential in the computer world. Though because of its abundance of negative qualities, windows loses and Mac OS is a better alternative.
Click to expand...


Wow, you're wrong. It may not have a lot of good qualities to you because you DON'T USE windows xp or vista. Since I play games regularly I'm pretty much forced into using Windows. But, since I'm not a retard I learn to tweak my operating system to work for me. You use OSX because you don't do anything that required Windows. Windows is amazing because of gaming support as well as software support all around, something that OSX doesn't have and probably won't have for a very long time unless they put some crazy form of resetta in leopard.

Again, you people need to be more objective. OSX is great if you only doing a certain few things. Windows is great because it's compatable with everything and can do everything I want to do reliably. If I were just going to do e-mail and surf the web and post on a web forum about how much Windows sucked I would get OSX (and I do plan on getting a powerbook when they release the x86 models, as long as you can install windows on them). But for my needs I NEED Windows. And because I'm literate I can educate myself into not screwing up my own computer so Windows XP works extremly well.

Another feature that will be included in Vista that I read about, in which I really like is a gaming benchmarking program. This benchmarking program will benchmark your computer based on direct x performance. Game developers can use this benchmarking tool to automatically set reccomended settings based upon what your computer has. Does OSX have this (serious question) as in my book that's wicked ****ing cool and extremly useful. Another feature is Windows XP will automatically tweak itself to give you the most performance based upon your hardware. Another wicked cool setting. Does OSX have these features (I'm not saying it doesn't it's a serious question.)
 
sluthy said:
From the screenshots, the interface style is VERY Tiger-like, down to the font and logo styles. Not bagging it, complimenting it, it looks good, the taskbar looks heap better without the green button. But the close/minimise/maximise buttons - whose bright idea was it to shift them left?? I liked being able to just throw my mouse up the top right to close (which iTunes won't let me do).

Also, half on topic - when exactly did Longhorn change name to Windows Vista? I knew Longhorn was just a codename, just missed the announcement. Vista's cool, better than "xp-erience".
Click to expand...


I agree, it looks awesome. Another plus for the end consumer.

They changed to the name vista sometime last week.

And for thoes of you bashing their codenames. The last few bits of software have been named after some ski resort somewhere.
 
sluthy said:
Also, half on topic - when exactly did Longhorn change name to Windows Vista? I knew Longhorn was just a codename, just missed the announcement. Vista's cool, better than "xp-erience".
Click to expand...

It was announced internally on the 21st and publicly on the 22nd. See link.

MS Reps were clearly bubbling with excitement. PS, if I ever look this incredibly lame, someone shoot me. :(

07-22lh.jpg
 
Well, I like it. I'd switch to back windows if it comes with exposé and a pretty laptop to run it with. I still think microsoft should make its own line of hardware in a stylized manner like apple. I'd give a lot to have a dedicated, well made windows laptop.

Also a public microsoft burning (that's real burning, with fire) of windows media player/launch of an itunes clone would be nice too.
 
conditionals said:
Well, I like it. I'd switch to back windows if it comes with exposé and a pretty laptop to run it with. I still think microsoft should make its own line of hardware in a stylized manner like apple. I'd give a lot to have a dedicated, well made windows laptop.

Also a public microsoft burning (that's real burning, with fire) of windows media player/launch of an itunes clone would be nice too.
Click to expand...


Asus makes some very attractive laptops at a high price. And Shuttle makes some beautiful screens and sff computers. But all of it costs at a premium.
 
One poster mentioned games and this is what I've heard:
Vista will take the console's role in playing games - meaning games of the future may not require installations. Whether that guy I read was full of hot air or not is unknown. But it would be interesting.
 
MrJohnson said:
Wow, you're wrong. It may not have a lot of good qualities to you because you DON'T USE windows xp or vista. Since I play games regularly I'm pretty much forced into using Windows.
Click to expand...

Forced? There's plenty of games out there for a Mac and they run beautifully on today's hardware. I'm not a computer game fan, so I've always thought that dedicated boxes are much cheaper and better for games.

MrJohnson said:
But, since I'm not a retard I learn to tweak my operating system to work for me.
Click to expand...

Just because some people don't tweak an OS a lot doesn't mean they're retards, and there's plenty of "retards" that do tweak their OS. Frankly, I think your use of retard is offending. ;)

MrJohnson said:
You use OSX because you don't do anything that required Windows. Windows is amazing because of gaming support as well as software support all around, something that OSX doesn't have and probably won't have for a very long time unless they put some crazy form of resetta in leopard.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have amazing gaming support, but perhaps amazing games. Did I mention the titles available for the Mac? However, DirectX is easy to code for and inviting to developers, since most people have Windows. No contest there.

MrJohnson said:
Again, you people need to be more objective. OSX is great if you only doing a certain few things.
Click to expand...

Certain few things? Hm, I manage to surf, e-mail, listen to music, manage photos, edit video, edit audio, edit photos, torrent, encode this and that, create documents, etc. I know I missed something...

MrJohnson said:
Windows is great because it's compatable with everything and can do everything I want to do reliably. If I were just going to do e-mail and surf the web and post on a web forum about how much Windows sucked I would get OSX (and I do plan on getting a powerbook when they release the x86 models, as long as you can install windows on them). But for my needs I NEED Windows. And because I'm literate I can educate myself into not screwing up my own computer so Windows XP works extremly well.
Click to expand...

That's...good for you. Just like using a Mac is good for me since I can do what I want to do more effectively than on Windows. Perhaps your workflow NEEDS Windows, but mine doesn't, and I think that a majority of computer users don't actually need Windows, since the Mac is completely viable as an alternative.

MrJohnson said:
Another feature that will be included in Vista that I read about, in which I really like is a gaming benchmarking program. This benchmarking program will benchmark your computer based on direct x performance. Game developers can use this benchmarking tool to automatically set reccomended settings based upon what your computer has. Does OSX have this (serious question) as in my book that's wicked ****ing cool and extremly useful.
Click to expand...

I'm not a game developer, so perhaps someone could speak to the tune of this quote. I'm pretty sure there are calls to get what the user is using, but I think it's much easier to depend on QE or CI, since those have set standards by Apple that are either there or not there.

MrJohnson said:
Another feature is Windows XP will automatically tweak itself to give you the most performance based upon your hardware. Another wicked cool setting. Does OSX have these features (I'm not saying it doesn't it's a serious question.)
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it does, since if a Mac has a certain technology available to it (such as multiple processors, QE, etc.) then it can take advantage of those things. I'm not particularly sure if an OS "tweaks" itself depending on your hardware. I think that if things are available, they're taken advantage of.

I know I come off as argumentative, but I'm trying to come across with a point. You sound like a reasonable person that uses what they use because it's what fits them best, and I'm the same way. So, I hope I'm not coming off like I think you're stupid or anything, because I don't. I'm just providing a different perspective. But the bottom line is that some people use Windows because it's best for them. Some people use Windows because they're lost sheep that never knew that there are better alternatives out there. I think that there are those types of users for most everything.
-Chase
 
well..now windows seems more like osx..lol..i wonder where they got half their ideas from?
 
dsharits said:
They innovated everything, what do you think? :rolleyes: ;)
Click to expand...

well..i mean look at the window of the documents folder. Except for a few cosmetic details and some color changes..its EXACTLY the same.
 
hehe

Keep in mind folks, that this is the forward step for MS Windows for the next several years.

I can't even begin to imagine the mac innovations during that time.
 
I have never really "hated" microsoft products and I have worked with them as a service tech for years and years. However, mac OS X is the better OS now and probably after Vista. I don't see much changing from XP to Vista besides the added eye candy. I remember when XP was in beta I used it and had less trouble then than I do now. This will likey happen wish Vista as well. When it first comes out it will be fairly virus free... but as time passes..... things will likey change.
 
applepuke said:
I don't work for MS, but I know what's going on because I work for someone that deals with them.
Click to expand...


And would that be your friend who works at CompUSA for minimum wage selling Windows PC's to unsuspecting customers who think he's a computer expert because he demonstrated that the CD-ROM drive can be used as a cupholder?
 
outerspaceapple said:
wow, this looks like the final demise of microsoft. you know I really didn't hate M$ untill they started using their monopoly to bully governments... no company should do that. thats just way to freeking huge.
Click to expand...

Kind of like the way apple forces it's loyal customers to buy overpriced, outdated and underperforming (but pretty!) computers to run it's OSX.

Sorry, had to say it.

And by the way, does anybody feel the same way I do about Tiger being a very weak upgrade to Panther? Sure, the widgets are handy, but as a user of OSX for work, I don't find much compelling about the 10.4 upgrade. I don't care about "automator" and "Spotlight." And I know most of the real world non geek users do either.

Perhaps tiger should have been Called OSX 10.3 SE.

Let the flaming begin. (by the way I prefer OSX to XP, just dissapointed lately)

;)

PS, sorry for the spelling errors. This post was brought to you via Windows XP. Where do you want to go today?
 
imz said:
...it's still there (see pic 7).
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight:

After all these years (since Windows95, actually), I still have to click the following to get my PC to restart:

Start > Shut Down My Computer > Restart > OK

Puh-leez...the illogic of this still annoys me to no end.
 
MrJohnson said:
Again, you people need to be more objective. OSX is great if you only doing a certain few things. Windows is great because it's compatable with everything and can do everything I want to do reliably. If I were just going to do e-mail and surf the web and post on a web forum about how much Windows sucked I would get OSX (and I do plan on getting a powerbook when they release the x86 models, as long as you can install windows on them). But for my needs I NEED Windows. And because I'm literate I can educate myself into not screwing up my own computer so Windows XP works extremly well.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, Mr. Johnson, I must take issue with your statement.

I have a beautiful little PC with which I find most pleasant to use; Firefox is fast, it's very quiet, and with the right security-ware, I believe/feel/have warm fuzzies that it's virtually safe whilst plugged into the 'net.

Fine. Great. Now, I wanted to do some semi-pro audio editing, burn some red book compliant CDs with crossfades, edit some video (without the disc fragmenting almost immediately), and then begin to look for some software to exract previously encoded movies (my own) from earlier DVDs for further editing, and download more than two files at once on my browser.

$1200 later, all I can do with my PC (OK - I'm stubborn - even to the point of throwing good money after bad) is surf the web (safely, I think...) and...well...that's about it.

Don't get me wrong - I'm keeping my PC, it works OK for what I do with it - but being stuck with this bill has me very disappointed with XP's offerings; it doesn't look like Vista will alleviate this, either. So far, OSX: 1; XP:0.

Back on topic:

The screen shots of Vista were very informative. However, from the looks of things, nothing much has changed from the persepective of the GUI; more interesting to me will be if there are any changes to NTFS, whether or not there will be integrated security systems, and finally, how much overhead is required to run the new system.

Thanks for listening.
 
remingtonhill said:
Kind of like the way apple forces it's loyal customers to buy overpriced, outdated and underperforming (but pretty!) computers to run it's OSX.

Sorry, had to say it.

And by the way, does anybody feel the same way I do about Tiger being a very weak upgrade to Panther? Sure, the widgets are handy, but as a user of OSX for work, I don't find much compelling about the 10.4 upgrade. I don't care about "automator" and "Spotlight." And I know most of the real world non geek users do either.

Perhaps tiger should have been Called OSX 10.3 SE.

Let the flaming begin. (by the way I prefer OSX to XP, just dissapointed lately)

;)

PS, sorry for the spelling errors. This post was brought to you via Windows XP. Where do you want to go today?
Click to expand...

unfortunately..i agree with you..

How much more powerful have macs become over the last 2 years (hardware wise)? Not very compared to the PC world. 2 years ago when G5 came out..macs were the most powerful machines around. Both the G5 and the G4 have not really gone anywhere in the last 2 years. Until they switch to intel..they're kinda bottlenecked.......................
 
That Big Brick Wall

Freyqq said:
How much more powerful have macs become over the last 2 years (hardware wise)? Not very compared to the PC world. 2 years ago when G5 came out..macs were the most powerful machines around. Both the G5 and the G4 have not really gone anywhere in the last 2 years. Until they switch to intel..they're kinda bottlenecked.......................
Click to expand...

I dunno - I get the gut feeling that AMD, Intel, Moto, and IBM have at least slowed down quite a bit with regard to Moore's law, et al; my XP's 3.2GHz Northwood is no more "snappier" than my sunflower iMac at 1.25GHz running 10.3.9. Whether or not this is the brick wall that everyone's been talking about is anyone's guess. (And I still think that Apple's move to Intel has more to do with portables/laptops than anything else - the Next Big Thing)

Hence, I believe that the next evolution in speed will come from the software/OS end of things. Again, I ask the question with regard to Vista: What's under the hood? How much legacy code will be abandoned?
 
MegaSignal said:
I dunno - I get the gut feeling that AMD, Intel, Moto, and IBM have at least slowed down quite a bit with regard to Moore's law, et al; my XP's 3.2GHz Northwood is no more "snappier" than my sunflower iMac at 1.25GHz running 10.3.9. Whether or not this is the brick wall that everyone's been talking about is anyone's guess. (And I still think that Apple's move to Intel has more to do with portables/laptops than anything else - the Next Big Thing)

Hence, I believe that the next evolution in speed will come from the software/OS end of things. Again, I ask the question with regard to Vista: What's under the hood? How much legacy code will be abandoned?
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you have it almost backwards, although you are very close. That Northwood *is* a lot, lot faster than the G4 in your iMac, for many things. The OS and the other components of the motherboard / system may fail to deliver the appearance of that speed improvement to you, but CPUs themselves have advanced significantly, if not necessarily at the full Moore's law level, over that time period.

But what I mean when I say you have it very close is that to continue to show the appearance of rapid incremental speed improvement, more and more work in the OS and motherboard and component side will be needed. Especially things like Video Cards, as more and more work gets offloaded to them. Computers are swinging back to the Amiga way of thinking, in some sense, where the CPU has a reduced role in executing major computing tasks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back