# Anyone looking forward to Windows Vista



## hypr (Dec 9, 2006)

I shudder to ask that question but it is open for discussion.

I personally am conflicted whether or not Vista will be good to run everything or not. My major concern is the upgrading problem, once one changes the motherboard or CPU you will have to call the Microsoft service line and re-activate it. I am more of a power user as I like my computers no matter how ancient.

My oldest box is a 386 (I am big on the dos games)

But what do people think of Microsofts new OS, six weeks time it comes out.


----------



## WelcomeTheCollapse (Dec 9, 2006)

I see no need for it if you already have XP. The only way this bloatware's getting into the market is through new PCs.


----------



## moebius_wazlib (Dec 9, 2006)

My informed reaction is mostly along the lines of _*remainder of clause deleted for extreme profanity*_, but that's just my opinion. I think I'll wait until I actually need a feature provided in *third-party software that requires Vista* before even considering what I hesitate to call an "upgrade".


----------



## hypr (Dec 9, 2006)

Yea, I want to but I want to see what others will do before I act, $199 USD is a lot to drop for an OS. They won't even release the starter edition here because of the World Bank regulations...


----------



## CyberFoxx (Dec 9, 2006)

Considering that I run Gentoo Linux, I don't see a need for Vista. Well, other than Vista-tan pics. ^_^


----------



## hypr (Dec 11, 2006)

I am a bit nervous about Vista, I plan on getting a DVD burner and SATA drive soon because SATA's are faster than ATA's


----------



## goat (Dec 11, 2006)

considering it will have DX10 and im a gamer, yes. i have no worries at all whatsoever about vista. not in the least


----------



## sasaki (Dec 11, 2006)

Considering that Microsoft themselves have said that Windows Vista despite being delayed is not quite finished says a lot. Let alone that it took WAY too many people and over a year to make a "shutdown button". No. I'm a gamer, but I will continue to use DX9 on Windows XP Pro even though my GPU is designed for DX10.


----------



## tesfox (Dec 11, 2006)

Nope.  Not in the least.  IMO, vista is XP with most legacy code removed, bloated up and topped off with Aero, a bad attempt to answer Apple's Aqua.  As far as games go, I'm a firm believer in games are meant for consoles, and you can use your computer for more important things.  Plus the fact that I run FreeBSD makes the switch meaningless to me.


----------



## DavidN (Dec 11, 2006)

So they're removed the bloat and replaced it with entirely different bloat? Fantastic.


----------



## hypr (Dec 11, 2006)

I wonder how it will stand up to piraters, and the exploiters


----------



## Rhainor (Dec 12, 2006)

hypr said:
			
		

> I wonder how it will stand up to piraters, and the exploiters



Vista is the most secure Windows OS yet.  That said, there's still (unfortunately) plenty of holes in it.


----------



## Aikon (Dec 12, 2006)

tesfox said:
			
		

> bloated up and topped off with Aero, a bad attempt to answer Apple's Aqua.Â Â



Aqua is overrated anyway, I got bored of it within a week's time.  I've always wanted to try Aqua Pro, though.  But, it's funny, I found a style for XP a few months ago and I fell in love with it (It's based on Aero, too), moreso than Aero OR Aqua.  Aero's nice, a hair better than Aqua IMHO, but it goes without saying.  

As to Vista in general, I'm more looking forward to getting a computer that will run it nicely.  I used RC1 and 2 and both ran kinda sluggish, I'm assuming it will be faster by the time of release, but I like to upgrade once a year (except thisy ear I don't have the $$$).  

The part about Vista that ticks me off is search, it was going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, then they dumbed it down, according to Microsoft, for the average idiot.  Hopefully they bring back the advanced search queries in PowerToys or something.


----------



## nrr (Dec 12, 2006)

It's another expense to pay.  That's all.  You can whine all you want about it, but Microsoft, you know, will still be releasing it as it is.  That's just how they roll.

Though, I was really beginning to like not having to buy a copy of Windows for a few years.  Luckily for me, the university gives me non-commercial copies of this stuff for free, so I'm pretty much just given a copy... as long as I don't use it for contract work or whatever.

Hey, I guess we could be using SGI IRIX or something, right?  At something like $650 per license, it sure is a _real_ bargain.


----------



## WelcomeTheCollapse (Dec 12, 2006)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> Vista is the most secure Windows OS yet.



Oh yeah. _That_ really says something. :roll:


----------



## Cybergarou (Dec 13, 2006)

I just got a new computer so I'm getting Vista through the express upgrade program. My old computer won't be upgraded even if my school offers Vista through the MSDN academic alliance. I'd sooner turn it into a Linux box.

Of course these things can't go smoothly. The upgrade site had a bug and couldn't look up the city/state info. As a result it deleted my Windows certificate information, presumably to prevent piracy. It took a week of sending e-mails to costumer support before they fixed the bug and restored the certificate database.


----------



## foreverwhiteknight (Dec 13, 2006)

personally Vista does sound like a lot of bloated-ness but like everything else it'll eventually be pretty much required to run anything new at one point.  I had even heard at some point that eventually you'd be required to have Vista to even access the internet, but then again I dunno how true that is.  It's been a while since I heard that ^^;

Though it will be a while before I get Vista, simply because my computer now couldn't run it.  Really it shouldn't even be able to run XP Pro but it does it pretty well.  I'll have to upgrade A LOT, pretty much starting from scratch and building a PC before I even consider Vista seriously.


----------



## hypr (Dec 13, 2006)

I am split on getting it, my video card, and virus scanner state that there may be issues as well as a few other things, I may get a SATA hd as they are faster.

But I am contemplating on wiping everything off and starting fresh on January 1, 2007


----------



## Kougar (Dec 17, 2006)

hypr said:
			
		

> Yea, I want to but I want to see what others will do before I act, $199 USD is a lot to drop for an OS. They won't even release the starter edition here because of the World Bank regulations...



Yes, there is a Starter Edition, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to use it. http://www.starter2007.com/



			
				hypr said:
			
		

> I am split on getting it, my video card, and virus scanner state that there may be issues as well as a few other things, I may get a SATA hd as they are faster.
> 
> But I am contemplating on wiping everything off and starting fresh on January 1, 2007



What is the video card? I've run full Areo Glass on an 9600XT, and run Vista without Areo Glass on an old PCI ATI 7000 card, in both cases with no apparent performance issues. I think the majority of AV companies already offer Vista compatible versions of their programs as well.


I am looking forward to Vista, the only reason I'm not using it now is I need XP for all the programs to review hardware with on my system. I see this whole debate as just a cycle, a great portion of the same things were said, on both sides of the fence, when XP was introduced 5+ years ago. I think it is time for a change, and the original XP code is old and has been poked/hacked/patched/modified more ways then I'd care to know. Vista was built from the ground up, which includes the networking stack.

Back in it's day XP required some moderate to serious computing power that left some out in the cold, and granted while Vista requires a bit more this time around I don't see it as any different. Users can stick with XP or upgrade as they please, although with the issue that gamers will be missing out on some serious additions to almost every game currently on the market, without DX10 to use with them.

Ignoring the aesthetics, I've found Vista to include a good deal of common sense in the interface changes that I quickly grew to miss when having to go back to XP, breadcrumbs being just one example. Having DX10 completely redo how the ATI/nVidia control panels work is a huge plus as well. It took some getting used to, but I only plan to use Vista...  Any of those pre-RTM versions are good for free fo use until about June of 2007 anyway (Assuming ya helped test at least one of the beta versions), and RC2 on up isn't to bad. Anything pre-RC2 should be avoided though.



> Finally, Microsoft has worked on crash recovery â€“ WDDM is much more efficient at rescuing driver and/or hardware failures. If the display driver crashes, WDDM will just kill the process responsible for the crash, rather than causing the obligatory blue screen of death or operating system hang.


 Taken from http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/11/30/directx10_future_of_pc_gaming/1.html It'sÂ Â a very good read for any gamers out there.

Hasta la Vista, XP.


----------



## eb7w5yfe (Dec 17, 2006)

I actually use Linux most of the time, but if I did use Windows I'd be tempted to upgrade to Vista.  The feature I like the most is one you don't see mentioned too often: they've finally implemented I/O prioritization.  You know how you can be playing some music, a movie, or a game, another program accesses the hard drive, and your music/movie/game stutters?  That should be much less of a problem in Vista.

There has been CPU prioritization for quite a while.  When it works correctly, the program you're using basically gets first pick of the available CPU cycles (to a point).  The problem is that access to the hard drive has not been prioritized the same way, so if a program needs to load some more data, it has to wait in line along with all the other programs reading data.  This is not the best situation: interactive programs should have a higher priority than ones running in the background, so that user interaction remains responsive.


----------



## Myoti (Dec 17, 2006)

Thanks to the intership I'm in at my school, I got to play the beta. Main things I noticed:

-it's sleek and shiny (with alot of... black).
-start button is round for some reason.
-fancy new way of showing thumbnails in folders.
-Inkball.

So overall, no, I see no reason for getting it.


----------



## Pyurio (Dec 18, 2006)

What disturbs me is that Windows Vista looks like something that Apple made.


----------



## sasaki (Dec 26, 2006)

What's a new Windows Operating System without FUD insight?


----------



## blueroo (Dec 26, 2006)

sasaki said:
			
		

> What's a new Windows Operating System without FUD insight?



There's not much uncertain about what's described there, though it rightly should cause anyone of sound mind to begin doubting...


----------



## RTDragon (Dec 29, 2006)

I'm not going to be very happy cause i will not be able to use my legal copy of RPG Maker ?XP i bought for $60 bucks at Enterbrain Website. with vista.


----------



## hypr (Dec 29, 2006)

I am afraid about Windows Vista, and my privacy, I don't like the calling home thing, it is against my privacy (But of course Microsoft changes the EULA to their own games)

I think this is why the European Union is suing them, mainly because of anti-trust, I feel sorry for those spending $499 USD on Vista Ultimate but since I am A+ certified quite a few automatically assume I am going to go for the biggest and best for my PC. As they state that Ultimate is for PC enthusiasts and gamers.

I was happy with Windows 3.11 and 486 PCs playing the cool old apogee games, some things we can't let go, (I know I have a Super NES)


----------



## ADF (Jan 2, 2007)

Not the most reliable of sources but a scary read none the less.


----------



## goat (Jan 2, 2007)

ooooooo i LOVE fud



still cant wait for vista, dont give a cunt about any of that. gonna be awesome


----------



## Cybergarou (Jan 2, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Not the most reliable of sources but a scary read none the less.



It's true that they tried to lock Vista installs to a single machine, but public outcry convinced them to return to the XP policy for the boxed versions. OEM versions are locked to a single machine since the OEM license already did that on paper. Article Link


----------



## goat (Jan 3, 2007)

FOUR HOURS TO INSTALL 32BIT HUH?


took like 15 mins on a few test pc's at work. middle of the road systems too


----------



## roxy (Jan 6, 2007)

I'm looking forward to it, personally love the new look. I've got a linux computer for my programming and application needs. But for my gaming machine I have great hopes for Vista.


----------



## Kougar (Jan 7, 2007)

A few tips for anyone interested in Vista:

Never choose the in-place "upgrade" option when installing Vista... due to driver conflicts, it CAN take up to 4 hours and the final result may not work right, or more than likely it will work but with performance issues. Always perform a new installation. Post RC2, install times can be as little as 30-45 minutes, even with a Northwood P4 system using 1gb of RAM. The more RAM in the system, then the more RAM Vista will use up... but 1gb is fine and 2gb is really all it needs, except for some power users or performance junkies. 

Do not bother using any version of Vista before RC2, download the most current beta edition possible. The trial keys that were handed out to Beta users are preset to allow up to 10 installations of any beta version of Vista Ultimate, but I don't know if this includes the final RTM version. Pretty much everything you could want to know about the OS is here, it's worth a good read if you want to understand what exactly's new. It also thoroughly explains the multitude of editions the best I've seen to date: http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista.asp


----------



## ADF (Jan 7, 2007)

Cybergarou said:
			
		

> It's true that they tried to lock Vista installs to a single machine, but public outcry convinced them to return to the XP policy for the boxed versions. OEM versions are locked to a single machine since the OEM license already did that on paper. Article Link


That was one of the major things that bothered me regarding the OS, thanks for the update


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Jan 7, 2007)

I say again... WINDOWS VISTA IS A COMPLETE RIP OF MAC OS X!!!

The same interface, the same widgets (gadgets for vista), same program layouts... 

It's all just a little too similar to not say Microsoft copied Apple. Shame...


----------



## goat (Jan 8, 2007)

crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> I say again... WINDOWS VISTA IS A COMPLETE RIP OF MAC OS X!!!
> 
> The same interface, the same widgets (gadgets for vista), same program layouts...
> 
> It's all just a little too similar to not say Microsoft copied Apple. Shame...



Same interface??? what, point and click?


widgets werent invented by apple

program layouts? explain please.


----------



## sasaki (Jan 8, 2007)

crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> I say again... WINDOWS VISTA IS A COMPLETE RIP OF MAC OS X!!!
> 
> The same interface, the same widgets (gadgets for vista), same program layouts...
> 
> It's all just a little too similar to not say Microsoft copied Apple. Shame...



Um, no. Just no. The interface is nothing like apple's. I believe Vista lacks the simplicity of OS X. Comparing Aqua to Areo is iffy. What about various Linux Distros? They have similar-to-aqua interfaces if you really think Areo = Aqua.

Also, IIRC, Stardock introduced widgets, not Apple. I'm not even going to comment on your "program layout" comment. That alone is 'what'.

IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE AN APPLE FANATIC HAD THE GAL TO SPEW THEIR ANTI-MICROSOFT STUPIDITY THANKS FOR MAKING IT QUICK AND EASILY REPUTED


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Jan 8, 2007)

Basically... I view Vista as a complete rip off of Mac OS X.
Okay, maybe I'm a little bit biased, but there are some distinct things nthat bring up my hatred for Mircosoft.

In regards to the interface, I was refering to the new way of organizing the windows, where the location bars are down the left, and the certain appearance of some newly-discovered blue arrows, which rotate to reveal the contents of the folder.

And widgets/gadgets issue is something else. Maybe OS X wasn't the first system to use these, but based on what I've tried in the Vista Beta, they're identical. 

Another thing is the new "Search". In every aspect it's a copy of "Spotlight", it's just hidden away in the lower-left, not the top-right.

And the new calender program is just like iCal, it even has the same color scheme. The "3D chess" game is also the same as the Apple version, just with 3 layouts instead of 4.

And lastly, the overall appearance. The new system looks like Aqua in almost every aspect, from the shiny and rounded buttons to the more user-friendly way things are organized.

Microsoft has always been stealing ideas from Apple. And they always will, this is just another example.


----------



## goat (Jan 8, 2007)

crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> In regards to the interface, I was refering to the new way of organizing the windows, where the location bars are down the left, and the certain appearance of some newly-discovered blue arrows, which rotate to reveal the contents of the folder.


i have no idea what youre talking about here. it has been a month since ive used vista, but i dont remember what youre referring to.



			
				crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> And widgets/gadgets issue is something else. Maybe OS X wasn't the first system to use these, but based on what I've tried in the Vista Beta, they're identical.


?? what? how many ways can there be to implement a widget? what will windows have to do to not make it "identical" and a "rip off?" 



			
				crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> Another thing is the new "Search". In every aspect it's a copy of "Spotlight", it's just hidden away in the lower-left, not the top-right.


in every aspect it's a copy? what, the fact that it brings up results of what you search for? if i recall correctly, i can search in xp as well. and windows 2000, and me, and 98, and 95. why is it JUST NOW a ripoff? oh, cuz its faster than previously? 



			
				crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> And the new calender program is just like iCal, it even has the same color scheme. The "3D chess" game is also the same as the Apple version, just with 3 layouts instead of 4.


havent used the new calendar so i cant comment.



			
				crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> And lastly, the overall appearance. The new system looks like Aqua in almost every aspect, from the shiny and rounded buttons to the more user-friendly way things are organized.


this is an opinion, so im not gonna say anything about it either



			
				crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> Microsoft has always been stealing ideas from Apple. And they always will, this is just another example.


lmfao.


----------



## blueroo (Jan 8, 2007)

sasaki said:
			
		

> IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE AN APPLE FANATIC HAD THE GAL TO SPEW THEIR ANTI-MICROSOFT STUPIDITY THANKS FOR MAKING IT QUICK AND EASILY REPUTED



Keep the discussion civil please.


----------



## sasaki (Jan 9, 2007)

crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> Basically... I view Vista as a complete rip off of Mac OS X.
> Okay, maybe I'm a little bit biased, but there are some distinct things nthat bring up my hatred for Mircosoft.


Thats quite an accusation. For the record, I'm not upgrading to vista because what their did right with the new API they've shat all over with heavy resource consumption and unnecessary content protection. Fortunately they've changed the licensing so it's more like XP's. I may be biased as well because of personal experience with Apple computers and the shortcoming of OS X. But I have similar feelings towards Microsoft.



> In regards to the interface, I was refering to the new way of organizing the windows, where the location bars are down the left, and the certain appearance of some newly-discovered blue arrows, which rotate to reveal the contents of the folder.


This vague description of an interface is present in neither Mac OS X nor Windows vista. Could you elaborate or provide a screenshot?



> And widgets/gadgets issue is something else. Maybe OS X wasn't the first system to use these, but based on what I've tried in the Vista Beta, they're identical.


The widgets in Mac OS X are a direct copy of Stardock's Object Desktop. Microsoft could have copied those widgets from Stardock for all you know. Either way, Widgets aren't new and there are a few other programs that use widgets.



> Another thing is the new "Search". In every aspect it's a copy of "Spotlight", it's just hidden away in the lower-left, not the top-right.


Search has always been there, albeit hidden. I never found Spotlight useful, because I tend to just hit the shortcut for search when I was a Mac user. I did use the search when in iTunes, though. I think it's too small a thing to just call it copying the OS. Similar search fields have been in web browsers too. 



> And the new calender program is just like iCal, it even has the same color scheme. The "3D chess" game is also the same as the Apple version, just with 3 layouts instead of 4.


I never used iCal. I guess I'm not busy enough to need calender software. Would you happen to have any reliable sources for the comparison? I'd like to look into it. As for the Chess game, I've played neither. However, IIRC the 3D Chess game that comes with Vista isn't developed by Microsoft. However, I can't verify that via Google for some reason.



> And lastly, the overall appearance. The new system looks like Aqua in almost every aspect, from the shiny and rounded buttons to the more user-friendly way things are organized.


Yeah, because everything is brushed steel with pearl buttons and a horizontally striped taskbar. Sorry, you're delusional if you think Areo looks like Aqua. Glass != Brushed Steel



> Microsoft has always been stealing ideas from Apple. And they always will, this is just another example.


If Jobs keeps his guard down, I'm sure another entrepreneur will use their pokerface to deceive him out of his MP3 marketshare too.


----------



## ADF (Jan 9, 2007)

All this arguing reminds me of the rantings some people have done of the PS3 supposedly copying the 360s user interface. How many different ways are there of making a console multimedia user interface with Internet access? There are HCI  standards that everyone has to follow else risk making it impractical and needlessly complicated for the sake of being different.

People have been predicting 3D desktops in movies and books for years so who exactly owns the copyright on that innovation? What does it matter who gets there first when everyone saw it coming? If something is useful adopt it, it would be silly to ignore a practical addition just because someone else did it before you.

To me the Vista interface just looks like a 3D version of the XP one, XP also supported placing interactive objects on desktop but was fairly limited and not innovated on at the time. It seems to me all this â€œMicrosoft copied Mac!â€ business is just a few MS bashers looking for something to pick on.

On another note all this got me wondering, when Mac first implemented the 3D desktop interface did they advertise any new functionality? Or was it just a â€œooh prettyâ€ gimmick? 

The Vista interface is more responsive during load as it is running from the GPU instead of DirectDraw which uses precious CPU time. It also cuts down on GPU related crashes by moving the GPU drivers from the OS vital processes to a user level, this allows them to restart crashed GPU related processes without resetting the computer. Being able to view & cycle through all windows quickly and see real time window thumbnails on mouse over also improve productivity.

Since crabby_the_frog seems to be the Mac rep in this thread perhaps he could clear this up for me? What was promoted as being useful when the Mac OS went 3D?


----------



## hypr (Jan 9, 2007)

I still don't know about Vista still, I tried it, I didn't like it one bit, I thought this was going to be the next big thing for Operating Systems, but it always asks your permission for everything which I hate, I am an A+ Certified technician, I know I do computer work on the side, people are going to ask me to install it for them...


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Jan 10, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> Since crabby_the_frog seems to be the Mac rep in this thread perhaps he could clear this up for me? What was promoted as being useful when the Mac OS went 3D?



Basically, when I first tried out OS X I was all like "Oh my god it's OS 9 plus Linux!"
Sure, anything between 7.5.3 and 8.6.2 was good enough, atleast much better then windows 95/98. But when XP came out, 9.2.0 couldn't compare. So, I believe that OS X first came out mainly as competition to XP.

That being said, OS X and XP were fairly even in quality. Both had their strengths and weaknesses. But then Apple released Jaguar, Leopard, Panther. and now Tiger. 

OS X was mostly promoted as something different. It was still the classic Mac OS that Mac users were used to, but had new features and was much more user-friendly then the first versions of Windows XP.

Maybe I'm just biased, but I believe that the most effective way to compete with OS X was to copy it's features. It isn't an EXACT emulation, clearly, but Vista contains many OS X native elements, which I doubt would of been included if Vista came out before Tiger.

But technically everything is a copy/ripoff of everything else. Ever wonder about the mouse? Windows DID get the mouse from Apple (Yes, it's true) but only after Apple got it from Xerox. Yes, Xerox. The photocopier. Microsoft wouldn't buy the design so Apple got it, and after it became a hit from the Macintosh Lisa (an amazing computer, btw) Microsoft got it. 

If you want to learn about it all, rent/download  "Pirates of the Silicon Valley".


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Jan 10, 2007)

I guess I didn't really answer the question...

OS X was good because it was so different from everything else. Basically a Linux/OS 9 hybrid (as stated above) it gave old mac users a fresh new look to computing. It made the basics easier, and made learning the harder stuff more convenient.

Does that make it better then XP? Maybe, or maybe not. But I'm not here to say that OS X is better then XP. "Am I looking foreward to Vista?" No. If I wanted to use those "new" features, I'd stick to OS X. I may of been a bit harsh saying Vista is a rip of OS X, but with that many similarities, it's clearly taken more then a few ideas from Tiger.

I'm fine with Vista as long as it doesn't try to steal "Timemachine", the newest feature coming to OS 10.5.0


----------



## blueroo (Jan 10, 2007)

crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> ADF said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OS X Server was released in 1999.
OS X was released in March, 2001.
Windows XP was released in October of 2001.

How clever of Apple to release OS X as competition to XP before XP was even available! BTW, you forgot to answer ADF's question.



> That being said, OS X and XP were fairly even in quality. Both had their strengths and weaknesses. But then Apple released Jaguar, Leopard, Panther. and now Tiger.



You have the order wrong. It's Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, and now Leopard.



> OS X was mostly promoted as something different. It was still the classic Mac OS that Mac users were used to, but had new features and was much more user-friendly then the first versions of Windows XP.



OS X is not classic Mac OS. It is in fact a completely different system in all respects. It shares little or no major codebase with Mac OS.



> Maybe I'm just biased, but I believe that the most effective way to compete with OS X was to copy it's features. It isn't an EXACT emulation, clearly, but Vista contains many OS X native elements, which I doubt would of been included if Vista came out before Tiger.



Vista has been planned since 2001, and under development since 2001 and then 2004. While there are many UI similarities, they are mostly due to the fact that UI theory is growing by leaps and bounds. The same UI designs and patterns are showing up in phones, PDAs, and other digital devices.



> But technically everything is a copy/ripoff of everything else. Ever wonder about the mouse? Windows DID get the mouse from Apple (Yes, it's true) but only after Apple got it from Xerox. Yes, Xerox. The photocopier. Microsoft wouldn't buy the design so Apple got it, and after it became a hit from the Macintosh Lisa (an amazing computer, btw) Microsoft got it.
> 
> If you want to learn about it all, rent/download  "Pirates of the Silicon Valley".



There was no mouse "design" to be bought. It was developed in 1964 and patented in 1970 by Dr. Douglas Engelbart. He also invented the window GUI concept. Both of these were later incorporated in to the Xerox Alto. After viewing the Alto in a private presentation, Apple blatently stole the entire design to create the Lisa. The Lisa was not a hit, it was a complete and miserable sales failure and is only of historical significance. Apple later tried to sue Microsoft for stealing their stolen design. Xerox then sued Apple for their original theft of the design. The courts told them all that they were retards and sent them home where they recruited hundreds of thousands of geeks with no personal lives to evangelize and worship their respective stolen product designs. Except for Xerox, who became The Document People.


----------



## ADF (Jan 10, 2007)

crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> I guess I didn't really answer the question...
> 
> *OS X was good because it was so different from everything else.* Basically a Linux/OS 9 hybrid (as stated above) *it gave old mac users a fresh new look to computing.* It made *the basics easier*, and made *learning the harder stuff more convenient.*
> 
> Does that make it better then XP? Maybe, or maybe not. But I'm not here to say that OS X is better then XP. "Am I looking foreward to Vista?" No. If I wanted to use those "new" features, I'd stick to OS X. I may of been a bit harsh saying Vista is a rip of OS X, but with that many similarities, it's clearly taken more then a few ideas from Tiger.


It was different, fresh, had a shorter learning curve and more user friendly...

Not really much to go on there, I need more specific details as what you said can mean anything. What specific new *functionality* did the 3D interface bring other than just being 3D? For instance something like when I stated several improvements the 3D interface brought to Vista before, saying something is easier to use isn't the same as saying why it is easier to use.


> I'm fine with Vista as long as it doesn't try to steal "Timemachine", the newest feature coming to OS 10.5.0


I looked up on that Time Machine feature, it sounds just like Windows system restore only it also lets you specify individual files to bring back. Anyone with the know-how can bring back deleted, corrupted and lost files on a PC only Mac seems to be sticking it in a user friendly application with a nifty name. The Vista OS supports automatic file back ups that allow you to restore a file to a previous version before editing, I imagine you also consider that a stolen idea?

Seriously operating systems have to meet certain requirements to be functional, how many important features do they have to drop/ignore for people to stop accusing them of copying? With this type of attitude how could there be any competition in the market if every single competitor is accused of stealing idea's from the first one that appeared? It is like the guy who created pong coming back and demanding royalties from all game companies because he apparently invented gaming and they are all building on his original idea...


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Jan 10, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> I imagine you also consider that a stolen idea?



Only if it used the same interface and simplicity as seen in the beta of 10.5.

A restore is an old feature, just don't have the whole "enter file name, get that file and only that file with no hastle within 30 seconds" easyness and i won't have anything against Vista's version.


----------



## goat (Jan 10, 2007)

so windows cant make stuff easier without stealing huh?


----------



## ADF (Jan 10, 2007)

crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> Only if it used the same interface and simplicity as seen in the beta of 10.5.
> 
> A restore is an old feature, *just don't have the whole "enter file name, get that file and only that file with no hastle within 30 seconds" easyness and i won't have anything against Vista's version.*


Let me get this strait; so you would accuse Windows of copying features from Mac if they were effective and easy to use, but if they are not well designed and are needlessly complex then it is fine... If I interpreted your post wrong please correct me because what I read just sounds weird.

File retrieval programs have existed for years; hell the police use them to inspect what was on formatted HDD all the time, I've even had network administrators restore accidentally deleted files for me back when I was at college. The only difference is Mac is making a version that is easier for the average Joe to use.

Mac is basically just utilising already existing technology in their own way, they didn't create it. Why then do you praise Mac for using this technology but would demonize Windows for doing the same?  The same could be said for many of the features you have accused Vista of stealing from Mac, they may have implemented them into a OS first but who says Mac invented them?


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Jan 10, 2007)

ADF said:
			
		

> The only difference is Mac is making a version that is easier for the average Joe to use.



That's exactly it. 



			
				ADF said:
			
		

> Mac is basically just utilising already existing technology in their own way, they didn't create it. Why then do you praise Mac for using this technology but would demonize Windows for doing the same?Â Â The same could be said for many of the features you have accused Vista of stealing from Mac, they may have implemented them into a OS first but who says Mac invented them?



I never said that Apple created the restore function. I just don't like how Apple as a company works hard to create something amazing, then a year later an almost identicle version comes out for their rival company. 

And I never said that Apple imvented such features as Widgets, they were just the first to commercially release them to the public to make things easier. Do you thnk that if Apple didn't release these features already, they would of been included in Vista? Doubtful.


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Jan 10, 2007)

goat said:
			
		

> so windows cant make stuff easier without stealing huh?



Noone said that. If you really want to start a flame war, do it somewhere else.


----------



## ADF (Jan 10, 2007)

crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> That's exactly it.
> 
> I never said that Apple created the restore function. I just don't like how Apple as a company works hard to create something amazing, then a year later an almost identicle version comes out for their rival company.
> 
> And I never said that Apple imvented such features as Widgets, they were just the first to commercially release them to the public to make things easier. Do you thnk that if Apple didn't release these features already, they would of been included in Vista? Doubtful.



I have to question your reasoning; why do you think because Mac implemented a tool a certain way first, and this is presuming they did do it first as there have been many 3rd party tools that do this, gives them the sole rights to it? They do not own the patent to the file retrieval method, they took the basic code and incorporated it into one of their own tools just like all OS developers do.

How is this any different from the many standard features that have been set for all operating systems by the market leader? Does Mac have a recycle bin equivalent? A desktop instead of a DOS interface? It could use simple text instead of those shortcut icons. I suppose it could be argued that all operating systems are copying off each other huh? Or perhaps there are certain functional standards that are expected of all OS, when they are set they must be met by all companies else fail to provide their users with the best possible resources.

You mention you never said Mac invented these tools, while true your responses throughout this thread suggest you think otherwise. If Mac don't own the copyright why become so bothered when the competition use the same feature? On top of that why do you presume if the Mac did not add these features the competition would have been incapable of coming up with them themselves? There are no facts to back up that statement, the very nature of operating systems says it would have been added eventually, which looking at Windows system restore in a way it already has.

You know what this reminds me of? The Nintendo Wii. The Wii put a motion sensor into their controller and made the biggest noise about it, then when Sony showed their version everyone accused them of ripping off Nintendo's idea simply because they heard about it from Nintendo first. However that motion sensor existed for years before the Wii was developed, it was used in various products from a 3 dimensional mouse to a gimmick 3rd party Xbox controller. But since it was introduced to the public on mass via the Wii everyone presumes they have ownership of it. Sound familiar?

Apologies for the long winded response, I tend to drone on.


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Jan 10, 2007)

No worries about the long response, believe me.

It seems that you DO get where I'm going with all of this. As already stated, features such as the widgets, dock, restore, search, etc have existed for a long time. And Apple releases these said functions on a user friendly operating system, then a short period afterwards Microsoft does the same. It's all principle of who does what first.

Do I think that Apple should try to sue Microsoft because the majority of Vista's new features are near-identicle to those from previous versions of Mac OS X? No.

I'm just pointing out my opinion that Vista is a rip of OS X. Not a "Rip-off", a rip. Check post #37. Had said features never been released by Apple, Microsoft would never of included them. Why Goat and Sasaki want to make a big deal out of this is still a mystery, since the purpose of this thread was for people to express their feelings towards the new system.

It's not a big deal.


----------



## goat (Jan 10, 2007)

windows vista is awesome


----------



## sasaki (Jan 11, 2007)

goat said:
			
		

> windows vista is awesome



By 'awesome' you mean more resource hungry then current operating systems, given users more unnecessary restrictions, doesn't give the user the option to choose what features to enable/disable, has content protection (DRM) that affects overall system wide performance, is pretty much incomplete, and it doesn't release with DX10?

The only thing Vista got right was the new API. "Ooohhh Shiny" doesn't excuse whats wrong with the OS.


----------



## goat (Jan 11, 2007)

havent had any of those problems, or ive  disabled em.


----------



## Kougar (Jan 12, 2007)

sasaki said:
			
		

> goat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you go back five years (And probably minus that API comment), and you would be talking about XP almost exactly. Every major Windows release has required more resources, and includes more DRM junk than the previous edition. While these are true of Vista I don't see how it matters much since people already accepted all of the DRM built into XP. 

As far as resources go, the E4300 will soon become $133, and performs better than any stock processor out there once overclocked. 4GB kits of RAM are about to be launched into the channels, and DX10 graphics cards are yet again showing performance levels relative to Moore's law by doubling their performance of the previous generation or better all over again.

The patch to install DX10 will be out within the next several months, and from what I've heard the OS is fairly complete otherwise. It will take that long for prices and general info on the upcoming surge of DX10 hardware to to begin settling anyway. If I may ask though, what features are you referring to that the user can't enable or disable?


----------



## hypr (Jan 13, 2007)

I am still nervous about this, I feel the computing world isn't going to accept Vista, it will be like Windows ME all over again.

Vista Ultimate will be the piraters treasure all piraters will want it once it gets cracked and people can dodge activation.


----------



## Aikon (Jan 13, 2007)

hypr said:
			
		

> I am still nervous about this, I feel the computing world isn't going to accept Vista, it will be like Windows ME all over again.



The difference between ME and Vista is that Vista actually has new features that are good.


----------



## Rhainor (Jan 15, 2007)

hypr said:
			
		

> I am still nervous about this, I feel the computing world isn't going to accept Vista, it will be like Windows ME all over again.



Not possible.  In order for an OS from a major software company to have as many problems as WinME did, they'd have to be _trying_ to make it like that.

Windows Vista has already been stated as being the most stable and secure Windows operating system to date.


----------



## Hanazawa (Jan 15, 2007)

Rhainor said:
			
		

> Windows Vista has already been stated as being the most stable and secure Windows operating system to date.



By whom, though? ;P


----------



## hypr (Jan 16, 2007)

It isn't secure if exploiters have exploited a lot of things in the OS.


----------



## ADF (Jan 16, 2007)

I heard the American NSA helped with Vistas security, whether that is reassurance of its security or marketing fud has yet to be seen though.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Jan 16, 2007)

I'm excited enough, my PC can run it no problem.  So long as its a real upgrade to XP, which it most definitely is, I'm happy to use it.


----------



## ADF (Feb 1, 2007)

Well Vista launched yesterday and I have to say all the hardware/software news sites that are not being influenced by Microsoft are freaking out.

Take a look around; reviews are either sunny sky's and everyone should adopt as soon as possible or this will be the bloated OS that finally destroys all our rights so we should all stick to XP. They are either going on a tantrum like the quoted guy below or saying â€œooh Vista pretty, you buyâ€.



> If Microsoft gets away with DRM and EULA this time around it will be the biggest (and most pervasive) worldwide corporate coup in history, bar none.
> 
> As soom as you load MS VISTA OS, your computer, hardware and software, is GOVERNED and REGULATED by Microsoft policies. None of your precious (expensive) apps and DATA will run without it, specifically. If you think that this takeover hasn't been a longterm goal of MS, your sadly mistaken. They have chipped away users rights, a little at a time, with each sucessive OS upgrade, with planned obsolecence as a catalyst for the entire industry as a whole. VENDORS don't care what Microsoft does as long as thet can sell their wares. They sold out years ago with WIN95. SO DID YOU!
> 
> ...



I have to admit with the two extreme viewpoints aside Vista is sounding pretty scary; even though I am a member of the free software group at university so can get the business version of Vista for free I still would think more than twice about installing it. More than likely I'd have it on a secondary drive by itself just for DX10 games and keep all my other stuff on a XP one.


----------



## yak (Feb 1, 2007)

Cross-posted,

If you're interested, you could read some documentation i found the other day...
I didn't have much respect for Microsoft to begin with, but after this i just lost any bits of it might have had left.

source: http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/

http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/9000/PX09280.pdf
http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/9000/PX09695.pdf
http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/9000/PX09509.pdf
http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/6000/PX06501.pdf
http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/122106/PLEX0_5879.pdf
http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pdf
http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/2000/PX02991.pdf
http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/1-22mediaupdate.pdf


----------



## Arshes Nei (Feb 19, 2007)

I just wanted to note that MSN - Microsoft's ISP is NOT compatible with Windows Vista. XD


----------



## capthavoc123 (Feb 19, 2007)

I would like to note that most games made before XP came out will not run correctly on Vista as it currently stands. I have friends who are having troubles with games made around or before 2002, and the Steam client is shaky as well.

As to the security thing, I saw cracked downloads on bittorrent a week before official release, so don't believe the Microsoft hype.

I'm personally waiting until I need a new computer so I can just get it bundled. Cheaper and safer because most of the bugs will be worked out and I can enjoy it to the fullest extent.


----------



## BloodYoshi (Feb 19, 2007)

Quoting a friend of mine:

"Vista looks nice, but in reality it's a raving beast and it's going to tear your face off. :"


----------

