Slashdot Mirror

Please tell me what's "expected", after a full load of bad live demos and delays...

Windows Vista RC1 has been made available to the general public, with keys available here.

There are various websites that report this build is far more stable than previous versions, but as Microsoft themselves have said "quality will continue to improve. We'll keep plugging away on application compatibility, as well as fit and finish, until RTM"

These builds are set to expire on June 1st 2007

read about paul thurrott's x64 report for rc1
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_rc1_0 2.asp
Welcome to Hell: Software compatibility and Vista x64

You think you're tough? Then try running Windows Vista in x64 mode: It can make a grown man wail like a little girl whose brother just catapulted Barbie over the fence. What's insidious about it is that the first impressions are deceptively good: After installing the thing in under 30 minutes and watching it recognize every single piece of hardware connected to my PC, I started installing applications thinking that this, finally, might be the time to move fully to x64 on my desktop machine.

Big mistake. Applications like Microsoft Office work just fine on the x64 versions of Windows Vista, but almost nothing else does. Adobe Photoshop won't install at all, citing an unspecified compatibility issue. Ditto for Virtual PC 2004. And AnyDVD. And Nero. And iTunes.

Yikes.

Then there are the applications that install just fine but silently fail in different ways when running. The Flickr Uploader application is a good example: This one installs as you'd expect. But when you right-click an image file to upload it, there's no Send to Flickr option in the pop-up menu. The reason is simple: Shell extensions for 32-bit applications won't work in x64 Windows versions. So applications like WinZip and WinRAR will have similar issues.

Quite quickly, it became obvious that x64 was going to be a nonstarter for me. So I wiped out the install and reinstalled the 32-bit version. And now, everything works. I'm so glad that only lasted half a day. Learn from my mistakes and just skip x64 unless you really know what you're doing. Or maybe you just hate yourself.

Win2k: if you have less than or equal to 512MB, set min to 1.5 times RAM, max to 2 times RAM. if you have greater than 512mb, set swap min/max to 1.5 times RAM. If you ever get an "out of virtual memory" error, defrag and add 100mb to min/max. If you have =/> 2GB RAM, disable swap, unless you are running server, in which case 4GB is the magic number.

The 2 drive swap method just doesn't seem to work as well on Win2k as it did on WinNT; no clue why, but i've tested it repeatedly.

WinXP Pro: Luser. why are you running the Windows ME of the 21st century? at least you aren't running WinXP home, though. just follow the guidelines for win2k, since that is all WinXP pro is, win2k with add-on crap, no changes to kernel or underlying function.

Win2003: No clue. Vista: Not only have no clue, but I promise you I never will.

Paul's Windows Vista Pricing Revealed article:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_pric ing.asp

From what I remember of the different edititions, there will be no separate x64 edition in the end, hopefully just two images on the same (dual-layer) DVD, except that the cheapo versions will only be 32-bit. (Like XP Starter of today.) Regarding the prediction of 32-bit preinstalled, this would seem like a pretty strong reason NOT to do that, from the OEM point of view.

The 'starter' edition will not have such support. Other ones seem to be as you say, according to Paul Thurrott. So buying a new version won't be an issue, you appear to be right on this matter. However, if your manufacturer installed the 32-bit version, you would need to install the 64-bit one yourself. Will all computers bought come with the retail DVD? I hope, but perhaps not. Even if so, installing the 64-bit version instead of the 32-bit one is no game in the park for most users.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_ff_x 64.asp

It is too bad that there is no shimming meaning you will see more UAP popup and This is a major handicap and will presumably mean that many legacy applications simply will not run on the Windows Vista x64 versions. Too, new 64-bit applications will need to adhere to the new Windows Vista application standards in order to run correctly on these versions. That means that even some software written specifically for XP x64 might not work correctly.

It also locks out third-party software from patching any part of the kernel

I also wonder how many game cd copy protection systems will work under vista x64?

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_ff_x 64.asp

It is too bad that there is no shimming meaning you will see more UAP popup and This is a major handicap and will presumably mean that many legacy applications simply will not run on the Windows Vista x64 versions. Too, new 64-bit applications will need to adhere to the new Windows Vista application standards in order to run correctly on these versions. That means that even some software written specifically for XP x64 might not work correctly.

It also locks out third-party software from patching any part of the kernel

I also wonder how many game cd copy protection systems will work under vista x64?

And MIPS.

Development started on the i960, the MIPS port was next and the x86 one was the done later

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winserver2k3_g old1.asp

"In the same time frame, it has shipped Windows XP Home Edition, Windows XP Professional Edition, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, Windows XP Media Center Edition, Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004, Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 (and 2005 UR2), Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005, Windows XP Home and Professional N Editions, Windows XP with Service Pack 2 (SP2, absolutely a big Windows upgrade), Windows XP Embedded, Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs, and Windows XP Starter Edition in various languages." from http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/macosx_leopar d_preview.asp

These are not all really unique versions of Windows per se. More like full versions and varying versions of crippleware with stripped out functionality.

Windows XP Home Edition - Windows with no domain functionality
Windows XP Professional Edition - Windows with domain functionality, not much changed from 2000 except crappier IO
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition - Windows on 64 bit, very buggy, little driver support
Windows XP Media Center Edition - Windows with some tacked on media functionality
Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004 - Windows with some tacked on media functionality, rebranded
Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 - Windows with some tacked on media functionality, rebranded again
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition - Windows with a touch sensitive monitor and some minor mods
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005 - Windows with a touch sensitive monitor and some minor mods, rebranded
Windows XP Home and Professional N Editions - Windows without Windows Media player, for Euros!
Windows XP with Service Pack 2 - Windows with less bugs, but a crappy firewall.
Windows XP Embedded - Windows stripped down for devices
Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs - Fat client display
Windows XP Starter Edition - Windows Home-esque crippleware

If you think about the overall changes from Windows 2000, to Windows XP, Windows as a whole has not really changed that much.

Correct. As covered earlier by slashdot this was the case with Paul Thorrott to quote the article:-

The key I had used to install Windows was a known pirated key, and required a modified version of winlogon.exe.

I expect WGA probably uses a combination of things such as checking the digital signatures of key assemblies as well as blacklists.

Maybe this guy should ask Paul for a copy, or perhaps just read a little more slashdot.

By default, the true administrator account is hidden and disabled by default. Most people won't even know it's there, and you have to go through a rigmarole to enable it if you really want it (these a how-to guide at http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com [computerworld.com] mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9001970). The "administrator" account that Vista creates by default is actually a standard user that can temporarily elevate to admin privelages on a task-by-task basis. It pops up a dialogue box like http://www.winsupersite.com/images/showcase/winvis ta_ff_uac_13.jpg, letting you press a big button that says 'allow' if you know it's something you initiated (e.g. you're trying to install something). You don't need to logout and relogin.

Why not simply say "Enough!", and try Linux or Mac instead?

If you can look past Apple's corporate bravado, you'll see that Tiger is one impressive cat. And unlike Longhorn, it's shipping any day now. What a concept.

You didn't look very hard. A quick search on Paul Thurrott's website gave me this, published in March.
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_edit ions_final.asp

You didn't look very hard. A quick search on Paul Thurrott's website gave me this, published in March.
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_edit ions_final.asp

1. I believe Microsoft is dropping the "My" with Vista http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5270. asp

2. I'll take anything as long as it isn't called "i" something - i am bored of that whole thing (not necesarily the products but the branding)

Slipstream SP2
Slipstream security updates as well
Or get updates as ISO images and burn your own CDs

Where Vista Fails I'll leave a fuller examination of Vista's broken promises for a later date. For now, let's look at the most current builds we do have--build 5308 and 5342--and see where Vista just completely blows it. As with the broken promises, Vista's failures are legion, but I'll just focus on a few examples here and leave the full list for a later time.

Or maybe it's because, now that they've successfully grafted the most pertinent user interface features promised by WinFS -- namely, rich file metadata and virtual folders -- on to NTFS under Vista, accomplishing them on a filesystem level is no longer a top priority. Nor, perhaps, should it be: from a strategic perspective, it makes good sense to get users and developers comfortable with the benefits of a relational filesystem while still permitting them access to the familiar hierarchical filesystem, rather than switching them "cold turkey" to WinFS.

Given that they've clearly committed themselves to relational filesystem paradigms on a UI level in Vista (it's still there, even in Beta 2, and given how integral it is to the UI design, I don't see how they could possibly back out of it at this point), I suspect that WinFS or something like it must still be in the offing, if only for the performance benefits it would offer over NTFS in supporting that paradigm.

Actually, that's already happening. According to Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/, the foremost reason for BSODs and system hangs on Windows Vista Beta 2 is the installation and use of Microsoft Office 2007 Beta 2 and Windows Live Messenger Beta 2.

"Complexity kills .. It sucks the life out of developers, it makes products difficult to plan, build and test, it introduces security challenges, and it causes end-user and administrator frustration."

Windows 2000 Beta 3 was delayed one week on April 15 until the 28th. On April 16th, Jim Allchin said that Windows 2000 had hit the home stretch: "We have a set of ship criteria that's incredibly complicated," Allchin said.

"While Windows 2000 is a great product, its development time and complexity is just too much to ask of customers. In the future, Microsoft will need to work off of a stable base, adding features on a yearly basis. For example, Microsoft should have developed Active Directory and IntelliMirror separately, releasing these products when they were ready. Asking customers to wrap their minds around all of the new features and changes in Windows 2000 is simply too much to ask."

"Complexity kills .. It sucks the life out of developers, it makes products difficult to plan, build and test, it introduces security challenges, and it causes end-user and administrator frustration."

Windows 2000 Beta 3 was delayed one week on April 15 until the 28th. On April 16th, Jim Allchin said that Windows 2000 had hit the home stretch: "We have a set of ship criteria that's incredibly complicated," Allchin said.

"While Windows 2000 is a great product, its development time and complexity is just too much to ask of customers. In the future, Microsoft will need to work off of a stable base, adding features on a yearly basis. For example, Microsoft should have developed Active Directory and IntelliMirror separately, releasing these products when they were ready. Asking customers to wrap their minds around all of the new features and changes in Windows 2000 is simply too much to ask."

Windows, on the other hand, has hundreds of thousands of apps that expect to be administrator. The software companies don't want to fix them, and Microsoft doesn't want to break them.

So MS defined a middle ground -- annoying prompts which you can't get rid of. Since there isn't a special security level which hides the prompts

Under the covers, UAC also provides some interesting features related to backwards compatibility. On a typical Windows XP system, applications are typically granted complete control over the system they are installed to, so it's possible for them to read and write information anywhere in both the Registry and the file system. In Windows Vista, the Registry and file system are locked down, however. So UAC provides Registry and file system virtualization services that silently redirect read and write operations from protected portions of the Registry and file system to unprotected places located with the user's profile. Let's see what this looks like.

Like you, I install various applications and many of them assume they have complete control of the system. One of them is Microsoft's MSN Messenger application. If you navigate to this application's folder (or any other application that assumes it can write to any folder on the system), you'll see a new button appear in the Windows Explorer toolbar called Compatibility Files:

(screenshot illustrating this)

If you click this button, you'll be redirected to a hidden location under your user profile where certain files have been redirected. The file here, ErrorResponse.xml, believes it is located in C:\ Program Files\MSN Messenger. It is, however, really located in D:\Users\Paul\AppData\Local\VirtualStore\Program Files\MSN Messenger.

Here is what Bruce Schneier thinks of Vista's UAC feature.

Vista is currently at Beta 2 (Build 5384) and Thurrott's opinion of Vista's UAC feature has changed. That link has a full review of Beta 2's current implementation of UAC and offers the following opinion:

Finally, I should note that UAC is evolving over the course of the Windows Vista beta. When I wrote When Vista Fails, the fifth part of my Windows Vista February 2006 CTP/Build 5342 review, UAC was popping up consent dialogs too frequently. Also, there was a bug in UAC that resulted in certain consent dialogs appearing repeatedly with no way to authenticate certain tasks. The proliferation of dialogs and aforementioned bug have been fixed in Windows Vista Beta 2. Better still, Microsoft also promises to make further changes to UAC over the remainder of the beta program to further reduce the number of times users will have to provide consent. In short, what was once aggravating is now quite bearable. The security benefits of UAC far outweigh whatever annoyances its dialogs might cause.

Here is what Bruce Schneier thinks of Vista's UAC feature.

Vista is currently at Beta 2 (Build 5384) and Thurrott's opinion of Vista's UAC feature has changed. That link has a full review of Beta 2's current implementation of UAC and offers the following opinion:

Finally, I should note that UAC is evolving over the course of the Windows Vista beta. When I wrote When Vista Fails, the fifth part of my Windows Vista February 2006 CTP/Build 5342 review, UAC was popping up consent dialogs too frequently. Also, there was a bug in UAC that resulted in certain consent dialogs appearing repeatedly with no way to authenticate certain tasks. The proliferation of dialogs and aforementioned bug have been fixed in Windows Vista Beta 2. Better still, Microsoft also promises to make further changes to UAC over the remainder of the beta program to further reduce the number of times users will have to provide consent. In short, what was once aggravating is now quite bearable. The security benefits of UAC far outweigh whatever annoyances its dialogs might cause.

Paul Thurrott review of compatibility for bata2 http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_beta2 _04.asp 64-Bit (x64) Support is worse http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_ff_x 64.asp Also Does UAP get in the way of in game updateing? Will M$ be able to make UAP work with games copy Protection / cheat Protection ?

Paul Thurrott review of compatibility for bata2 http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_beta2 _04.asp 64-Bit (x64) Support is worse http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_ff_x 64.asp Also Does UAP get in the way of in game updateing? Will M$ be able to make UAP work with games copy Protection / cheat Protection ?

bullshit. i've got an old sff as a server and ipaq as a workstation -- very small, can't hear them, draw ~30W each.

Bzzzt here's on article on Paul Thorrott's Windows SuperSite talking about the begining of Longhorn (now vista development) from 2002 talking about the previous years Longhorn development in 2001. Vista is a long bake turkey, try ahhmm 5 years.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/longhorn_prev iew.asp

While it's true that Longhorn has evolved a great deal since the early demos, many of those features were presented back then. Example: This article by Paul Thurott back in 2002 lists many of these:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alpha .asp

And this review from 2003

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_4008. asp

Basically, these show things like the sidebar with widgets, talk about the search functionality (though at the time quicksearch was considered part of WinFS, so the talk is in that context). This was 2-3 years before Tiger, and a year before Panther.

While it's true that Longhorn has evolved a great deal since the early demos, many of those features were presented back then. Example: This article by Paul Thurott back in 2002 lists many of these:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alpha .asp

And this review from 2003

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_4008. asp

Basically, these show things like the sidebar with widgets, talk about the search functionality (though at the time quicksearch was considered part of WinFS, so the talk is in that context). This was 2-3 years before Tiger, and a year before Panther.

Believe me, you are going to need a hellified system to run Vista at this rate. Double the "Premium Ready" specs and you will have the specs you will need to actually run Vista.

As I was reading your comment, I just assumed you were a troll until I read your last paragraph:

Oh yeah, and I run Panther on a 300MHz iBook with 544MB RAM and a 30GB hard drive.

Believe me, you are going to need a hellified system to run Vista at this rate. Double the "Premium Ready" specs and you will have the specs you will need to actually run Vista.

As I was reading your comment, I just assumed you were a troll until I read your last paragraph:

Oh yeah, and I run Panther on a 300MHz iBook with 544MB RAM and a 30GB hard drive.

Is it too soon to release Windows Vista? Just to promote dialogs, you know...

Your hopes are not in vain. Just read any review of M$ AdCenter or Vista (train wreck ... not compelling to human beings). The slow down is not gradual, it's instant, and the damn thing might not work at all.

To let this, those willing to create a format, should clearly state specifications for these formats, or clearly state that this format is just for a specific application and should not be shared so that users won't use those files for sharing. A .doc file created with 200x version of Microsoft Word is just like the feces of this application.

In Office 12 (the next version of Office), Microsoft will use an XML-based, open standard for documents. The extensions will be .docx, .xlsx, etc.

From http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/office12_insi de_02.asp:

"Word, Excel, and PowerPoint will ship with new native document formats in Office 12. Files created in these new Open XML formats will be demarked with an addition "x" in the file name extension."

So the format will be open in future, allowing other applications to be fully compatible with Office documents. It won't be "just for a specific application" anymore.

Fittingly, the next NT release, Windows NT 4.0, became known as the Shell Update Release (SUR), another challenging task that would once again prove the benefits of NT's module architecture. "We wanted to build a desktop that had the 95 shell but used NT technology," Lucovsky told us. "We eventually moved the Win32 GUI components and hosted them as an in-process driver. Performance was one side effect. We had had problems taking that API and running it in a different process. So moving the code to the same context as the runtime solved a lot of issues. We didn't have to do dead lock detection for GDI and USER. It was significant work, but it solved a lot of headaches." NT 4.0, a watershed release for the product, shipped in July 1996.

I'm with you here. My sibling post (correct term?) and you make nice points about lazy programmers, so I'm going to go and bash some bad designers, too.

I've found that Windows and its applications are really, really stupid with the way they handle dialog boxes. Kind of off-topic, I know, but since most security issues are luser error, I can guess that most of those are caused by blind click-click-clicking Yes to dialog boxes.

I get a dialog box when I try to delete a file. I get several dialog boxes whenever a program crashes - something about an error report. At my school, they've managed to set up Word so you get three dialog boxes when you open it: one asking you to disable macros (to which the average user goes What?), another telling you that macros have been disabled (yes, that's why I clicked that button) and another telling you that there's a window open.

With so many dialog boxes around, most of them unnecessary, I don't blame the average user for ignoring the important ones. If you press Yes, the nasty evil dialog box will go away. Sooner or later the times comes when you install some spyware trying to get rid of the dialog box.

And what has Vista done? Put even more of them in. Quoth even Paul Thurrott: The problem with UAP is that it throws up an unbelievable number of warning dialogs for even the simplest of tasks. That these dialogs pop up repeatedly for the same action would be comical if it weren't so amazingly frustrating. It would be hilarious if it weren't going to affect hundreds of millions of people in a few short months. It is, in fact, almost criminal in its insidiousness. Gah, showering the user with more dialog boxes is useless, as they ignore them all anyway!

I'm on a roll here. What else?

When I want to Save a document, I go to the button marked Save. At least, I do on Gnome and OS X: Windows likes to have buttons called "Yes", "No" and "Cancel" instead. So instead of doing what I want (Saving), I have to read the dialog to find out which button Saves my document. And most people wouldn't even try to read it; they'd just click Yes and hope it was the right one. Oh, and the dialog text is often in a small font with no discernable main point about what it does.

Windows dialog boxes are obtrusive enough that people would rather make them go away (think: click Yes) than working out what they do. Here's an example of a Mac one - I can tell what each button does before reading, and even if I have to read, there's some nice bold text so I don't have to read it all. Here's the worst example of a Windows one I could find. Note none of the above things that the Mac does right. This isn't the best example, I know, but it points out where Windows fails best.

I reckon you could've eliminated a fair few spyware installs if the "Yes" button was labelled "Install Software", or the "Next" button was lebelled "Accept this Licence", or whatever it is. No more "Let's click Yes to make the nasty evil dialog box go away", but some people will think "Do I really want to install this software?" or "Do I really want to run this program?". It makes people think, and thinking is good when you're trying to make decisions.

Oh, and:

"How dare you try to type at another window when I am here, infidel scum!"

"And Vista dyes the rest of the screen black, just in case you didn't notice me the first time. See?"

Where was I? Oh yes, computer security. I don't think it's fair to blame any and all spyware installations on user error. Windows places you on a path above a crevasse with a bicycle, and expects you to pedal to the other side. Sure, you might get blown off by wind (read: security holes in the OS). Many people

I'm with you here. My sibling post (correct term?) and you make nice points about lazy programmers, so I'm going to go and bash some bad designers, too.

I've found that Windows and its applications are really, really stupid with the way they handle dialog boxes. Kind of off-topic, I know, but since most security issues are luser error, I can guess that most of those are caused by blind click-click-clicking Yes to dialog boxes.

I get a dialog box when I try to delete a file. I get several dialog boxes whenever a program crashes - something about an error report. At my school, they've managed to set up Word so you get three dialog boxes when you open it: one asking you to disable macros (to which the average user goes What?), another telling you that macros have been disabled (yes, that's why I clicked that button) and another telling you that there's a window open.

With so many dialog boxes around, most of them unnecessary, I don't blame the average user for ignoring the important ones. If you press Yes, the nasty evil dialog box will go away. Sooner or later the times comes when you install some spyware trying to get rid of the dialog box.

And what has Vista done? Put even more of them in. Quoth even Paul Thurrott: The problem with UAP is that it throws up an unbelievable number of warning dialogs for even the simplest of tasks. That these dialogs pop up repeatedly for the same action would be comical if it weren't so amazingly frustrating. It would be hilarious if it weren't going to affect hundreds of millions of people in a few short months. It is, in fact, almost criminal in its insidiousness. Gah, showering the user with more dialog boxes is useless, as they ignore them all anyway!

I'm on a roll here. What else?

When I want to Save a document, I go to the button marked Save. At least, I do on Gnome and OS X: Windows likes to have buttons called "Yes", "No" and "Cancel" instead. So instead of doing what I want (Saving), I have to read the dialog to find out which button Saves my document. And most people wouldn't even try to read it; they'd just click Yes and hope it was the right one. Oh, and the dialog text is often in a small font with no discernable main point about what it does.

Windows dialog boxes are obtrusive enough that people would rather make them go away (think: click Yes) than working out what they do. Here's an example of a Mac one - I can tell what each button does before reading, and even if I have to read, there's some nice bold text so I don't have to read it all. Here's the worst example of a Windows one I could find. Note none of the above things that the Mac does right. This isn't the best example, I know, but it points out where Windows fails best.

I reckon you could've eliminated a fair few spyware installs if the "Yes" button was labelled "Install Software", or the "Next" button was lebelled "Accept this Licence", or whatever it is. No more "Let's click Yes to make the nasty evil dialog box go away", but some people will think "Do I really want to install this software?" or "Do I really want to run this program?". It makes people think, and thinking is good when you're trying to make decisions.

Oh, and:

"How dare you try to type at another window when I am here, infidel scum!"

"And Vista dyes the rest of the screen black, just in case you didn't notice me the first time. See?"

Where was I? Oh yes, computer security. I don't think it's fair to blame any and all spyware installations on user error. Windows places you on a path above a crevasse with a bicycle, and expects you to pedal to the other side. Sure, you might get blown off by wind (read: security holes in the OS). Many people

Operating system companies really should err on the side of paranoia whenever possible.

testers didn't get a so-called feature-complete Vista version until February 2006. However, that build, and a subsequent interim build 5342, are not feature complete. In fact, there are many, many features missing from these builds that will apparently show up in future builds. (Link.)

What's with eliminating the standard menus that every other Windows program uses?

You can enable them!. Look here!. The menu is placed between the address bar and the tab bar. The tab and the address bar are both related with the page you're viewing, the menu is not. It's probably the worst place to put such menu: you want to keep such elements in the same place. But hey, this is microsoft - some reviewer will argue that it has sense.

The UI of IE7 was designed very carefully. They just don't know to do it right. Look at the the latest paul thurrot's vista review:

http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5 342_rev5_02.jpg
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5 342_rev5_08.jpg
(Try to guess which is the active window)

http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5 342_rev5_01.jpg
("File operations"! great!)

I've enought problems to make people understand XP (why the extension->program associations are placed under "carpet options"???? Why i need to look at the taskwork's properties to delete the list of recently opened files in the start menu??? Why some visual effects are on the "my pc->properties" window, others in the display's properties and some duplicated in both?? Oh, and wait: in IE7 beta 2 you configure cd-auto-startup in IE's advanced properties). I can't wait for vista, it looks like they'd be trying to be better than mac os x but they keep falling in the second-system syndrome. It's so bad when it comes to usability that is laughable - most of the people knows windows just because they're taugh the basic operations in the school.

Look at how many XP/office training courses are in your city. It's so fucking bad that people can make money with it.

What's with eliminating the standard menus that every other Windows program uses?

You can enable them!. Look here!. The menu is placed between the address bar and the tab bar. The tab and the address bar are both related with the page you're viewing, the menu is not. It's probably the worst place to put such menu: you want to keep such elements in the same place. But hey, this is microsoft - some reviewer will argue that it has sense.

The UI of IE7 was designed very carefully. They just don't know to do it right. Look at the the latest paul thurrot's vista review:

http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5 342_rev5_02.jpg
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5 342_rev5_08.jpg
(Try to guess which is the active window)

http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5 342_rev5_01.jpg
("File operations"! great!)

I've enought problems to make people understand XP (why the extension->program associations are placed under "carpet options"???? Why i need to look at the taskwork's properties to delete the list of recently opened files in the start menu??? Why some visual effects are on the "my pc->properties" window, others in the display's properties and some duplicated in both?? Oh, and wait: in IE7 beta 2 you configure cd-auto-startup in IE's advanced properties). I can't wait for vista, it looks like they'd be trying to be better than mac os x but they keep falling in the second-system syndrome. It's so bad when it comes to usability that is laughable - most of the people knows windows just because they're taugh the basic operations in the school.

Look at how many XP/office training courses are in your city. It's so fucking bad that people can make money with it.

What's with eliminating the standard menus that every other Windows program uses?

You can enable them!. Look here!. The menu is placed between the address bar and the tab bar. The tab and the address bar are both related with the page you're viewing, the menu is not. It's probably the worst place to put such menu: you want to keep such elements in the same place. But hey, this is microsoft - some reviewer will argue that it has sense.

The UI of IE7 was designed very carefully. They just don't know to do it right. Look at the the latest paul thurrot's vista review:

http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5 342_rev5_02.jpg
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5 342_rev5_08.jpg
(Try to guess which is the active window)

http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/vista_5 342_rev5_01.jpg
("File operations"! great!)

I've enought problems to make people understand XP (why the extension->program associations are placed under "carpet options"???? Why i need to look at the taskwork's properties to delete the list of recently opened files in the start menu??? Why some visual effects are on the "my pc->properties" window, others in the display's properties and some duplicated in both?? Oh, and wait: in IE7 beta 2 you configure cd-auto-startup in IE's advanced properties). I can't wait for vista, it looks like they'd be trying to be better than mac os x but they keep falling in the second-system syndrome. It's so bad when it comes to usability that is laughable - most of the people knows windows just because they're taugh the basic operations in the school.

Look at how many XP/office training courses are in your city. It's so fucking bad that people can make money with it.

Before I begin, I'd just like to say to anyone still reading that I am fully aware of that timeless maxim, and its appropriateness here is not lost on me.

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

With that done, I can address your points.

It doesn't matter if you are using Linux, OpenBSD, or even WindowsXP, you are using technology I personally worked on at some point in my career.

You call yourself a veteran, yet you have a /. number which almost exceeds mine? Not exactly damning evidence, I admit, but having read some of your other posts this leads me to a more obvious conclusion - you're a bullshitter. At the very least, the malodorous whiff of your overside ego threatens rather than strengthens your argument - you appear to be little more than an arsehole. Furthermore, you cannot spell.

But, keeping an open mind...

I've no interest in debating who came up with the idea of OS-wide indexed searching first - I don't believe it was Microsoft; you believe it was. The reason I have no such interest is because it is immaterial - BeOS had it first, with some saying this was back in 1996*, Mac OS X got it in 10.4 in 2005 and...Windows still doesn't have it. Granted, Apple's implementation is not a full DBFS, but to the end user, the result is the same, so it matters little. And Microsoft isn't even including WinFS in Vista anyway! So I am left wondering if you have any idea what you are on about...

Moving on...

Actually the screenshots that Paul Posted are already outdated, this is why it is called a BETA.

No they aren't. You're either stupid or in denial. Incidentally, I love the capitalisation on the second P. Paul Posted. It's like some kind of...I dunno. But it's quite funny...

Now if you love Paul and believe he is always correct...

I probably hate him more than you do. He is, as you correctly stated in your original post, "not a technical person" (this was probably the only thing you got right), and I find his articles little more than shameless puff pieces. In short, he is a Microsoft fanboy. (Hence, incidentally, why this review is so interesting - his attacks are really quite scathing.)

I can't prove ya wrong, my NDA will not allow me.

Twat.

Anyway, you didn't respond to what was perhaps my most significant accusation (and the most obvious conclusion one can reasonably draw), which I quote here again for convenience:

Judging by the icons in some of the dialogue boxes (try here), some of the stuff hasn't seen an update since Windows 95. There's a reason it "'appears' to not be different to push away current Windows Users".

I suppose the essence of your response lies in this sentence:

However, most of the OS has been changed, and the parts that haven't are compiled using the new development tools from MS.

You say much has changed. I beg to differ. But before I respond, seeing as you seem so intent on waging a virtual cocksize contest, my background:

My Windows pedigree is pretty lengthy. I can certainly claim a familiarity with Windows 3.0 - I, unlike many of the wee babes-in-arms on here, can actually honestly say (and would swear to that in a court of law) that I have experienced an unrecoverable application error. If you were there, you will know these as UAEs. Yes kids, there was something before the dreaded GPF. Furthermore, I have used every version of Windows since then, some more than others and some more than I would like to admit.

So I have seen Windows evolve, from the glorified DOS shell that it was to the bloated piece of crap it has become in Windows XP and beyond, and in each release, I have noted what has changed and what has stayed the same.

An awful lot

You look forward to exploiting the "3D interface". But you won't be able to...

any software oriented toward home use cannot depend on the feature...

the feature cannot be exploited in corporate applications either...

My prediction: the ONLY application that exploits this feature will be Vista itself. Possibly Microsoft may update some applications, but it must remain an optional part.

Microsoft will offer .NET updates and maybe force MS IDE users to use the interface (not as many desktops to migrate, and its a minor part).

But maybe I missed your point.

From his example of trying to remove an icon created during installation, check out this screenshot:

"[ ] Repeat my answer each time this occurs"

WTF is "this" referring to? Any attempt to delete a file for the rest of all time? Everything in this particular adminstration operation? Every file delete during this operation? Who knows?!

Also note there's no Tooltip help for this. It's like playing Jeopardy, "I'll take 'Skip' for $400 $600 and $800, Alex, now what was the question again?" Argggghhh, this is worse than the DLL Hell questions during program uninstall.

On Linux or Mac the app makes you sudo to get elevated permissions, and stays with them for a minimal time, guaranteed to end at the end of the install. It looks like Windows Vista can't, or doesn't, do this.

"I've been a Mac fan my entire life"

"Microsoft is working on similar, if further-reaching, technology for Longhorn. Apple's solution, however, is here right now and it appears to work quite well. Score one for Apple."

"Overall, I've always been a big fan of Safari, and I'd use it rather than Firefox or IE if it were available on Windows. It's an excellent application."

"Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" is, in fact, a minor upgrade to an already well-designed and rock-solid operating system. It will not change the way you use your computer at all, and instead uses the exact same mouse and windows interface we've had since the first Mac debuted in 1984. That isn't a complaint about Tiger, per se: It's a high-quality release. My issue here is with marketing, not with reality."

"Apple Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" is the strongest OS X release yet and a worthy competitor to Windows XP"

"And unlike Longhorn, it's shipping any day now. What a concept."

"The graphics subsystem is substantially improved, if a little obviously modeled after that in Mac OS X. Heck, half of the features of Windows Vista seem to have been lifted from Apple's marketing materials"

"Windows Vista will still include pervasive index-based searching features modeled, apparently, after the Spotlight feature in Mac OS X."

My Wife is Switching to the Mac

Yes, it definitively sounds like the typical Windows who can't write non-biased opinions about other products

One memorable line from his review of 10.4 had it that Windows XP SP2 was a more significant update than was Tiger, yet elsewhere in that review he just casually pointed out how 10.4 was little more than a large collection of bug fixes

Maybe because it may very well true? Sorry if it doesn't means the same for you, but the addition of applications to get the time, weather and stocks (nice, but "revolutionary"???), spothlight, quartz 2d extreme (an optimization to an already good graphics subsystem) and core image looks to me like a light addition compared with all the internal features microsoft touched/add in SP2 (rewriting part of the IE UI, rewrite part of the IE internals to handle better the security objects, the add-on manager, the much-improved firewall, the much improved wireless support, the reworked RPC internals, updated directx, the non-executable stack protection. You may argue that Mac OS X already does all what those XP updates do but for XP SP2 is a HUGE jump, much bigger than what 10.4 for mac os x 10.3

That's just it, whatever controls delete functions imposed those restrictions... on a shortcut file (see the image, it's hard to see, but the dialog does explain that it's a shortcut). Not only that, but he complains later on about the useability(sp?) of the same dialog, and I agree with him. What happened to 'Are you sure you want to delete these (numdelete) items permanently? Yes, No'? It was simple and easy to understand. Now we get this. Two buttons to click for just one deletion. Can you imagine the headache of emptying a recycle bin with 100+ items in it... two hundred clicks for an operation that used to require one. That's what he was getting at.

Nice troll.

I've karma to burn, so just a couple of points:

Vista doesn't look vastly different...

This is such bollocks it's hard to know where to start. As Thurrott laments, one of the most fundamental features of a windowing system - the idea of depth in a 2D space and so marking out the active window - has been thoroughly fucked up by a team whose sole goal seems to have been to chase the teh pretty crowd. Those screenshots were damning. Usability has gone to shreds.

...even though most of the OS has been rewritten...

Do you actually have any evidence of this? Judging by the icons in some of the dialogue boxes (try here), some of the stuff hasn't seen an update since Windows 95. There's a reason it "'appears' to not be different to push away current Windows Users".

...and has tons of new protections and features that just work..

Evidently not. Evidently they are so poorly implemented that even fanboy Thurrott is banging his head on the table.

Vista is a new OS with the first radical change in Windows since Windows 3.0.

You're a fucking idiot. A first class fucking nutcase.

Then I read the rest of your post, where you start talking about this fire bollocks, or something, and I realise that you actually are a fucking nutcase...

...you need to prepare, learn and even USE some of the ideas Microsoft has recreated in development, and bring these to other OSes.

OK, I'll give you that. Apple brought decent search to Mac OS X in 2005 after Microsoft announced it would implement it in Vista, then Longhorn. Alas, Windows users will get their hands on it in...2007. Hmmmm...

iqu :|

(And, just one thing, moderators, before modding me down, take a moment to read and consider the parent's post. I am normally a rational and controlled type, but sometimes things just have to be said...)