Slashdot Mirror
Windows Vista Build 5231 Review
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has just released a new build for Windows Vista and it looks like Microsoft has made quite a few graphical changes. "This is possibly the only application with more anticipation surrounding it than Internet Explorer 7, if not Vista itself. We wonder if Microsoft would bundle Windows Media Player 11 with Vista exclusively or would it be available for download separately for Windows XP as well. It most certainly will end up looking a lot better (graphically) than most music players out there, iTunes included. Although it appears to look pretty straightforward, the interface has changed drastically, which makes it far more attractive than Windows Media Player 10 as well as competing applications."
How much do you need your media player to do beyond playing media?
If i wouldn't have gotten a mac I don't know if I would have ever gone past winamp 2.x
Also, what is this article supposed to be about? Windows Media Player, or Vista?
Who the hell wants one of those? I use VLC and Foobar2000 to get away from that crap!
There's nothing more pathetic than apps trying to emulate the look of physical appliances, like all DVD-players do for instance. It's like some idiotic idea that just won't go away, no matter how truly stupid and fugly it is.
Give me media player classic any day.
Does the same apply to the latest weekly Ubuntu release or Mac speed bump, or do you have sliding standards for different products?
Windows media player and Realmagic player both suffer from the same dilusional management. Someone believes the player is more important than the media. If I want to watch a DVD or listen to an MP3 all I want is an easy way to find my media, and then to see/view the media itself.
This obsession with skins and enormous toolbars and wasted screen real estate drives me nuts. Winamp was good because there was virtually nothing wasted in the display. iTunes also realizes the media is more important than the player. When will Microsoft and Real catch up?
what's with all the dead space around toolbars, blocks of text, etc?
...and that's all there is to it.
I really, really, really enjoy the extreme and skillful strategic positioning of Apple and MacOS X by the mastermind Steve Jobs.
No matter what Bill Gates will show, Jobs will include a similar, but better version in the next MacOS X update. By doing that, all new features of Windows Vista will look old and outdated when finally released. And give us Mac users ammo for years to come.
This is so beautifully played, someone should make a drama movie about it.
is that what counts as a good UI these days? Holy fuck.
The GUI is dead. Bash, time to step up and take its place.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Smell that freshly baked propaganda frosted with a heaping helping of hype. Mmmmm.
Seriously. Vista is going to flop, mainly because XP can already do what people need their computers to do. No reason to upgrade. So beyond the initial rush of people keeping up with the Jones', it'll peter out pretty quickly. Then Microsoft will blitz every media source even harder and attack linux some more. Frankly, this sucks. I would rather have a root canal than have Vista ever get released. Just do it quietly, please.
Drop me a line at:
Key ID: 0x54D1D809
"It most certainly will end up looking a lot better (graphically) than most music players out there, iTunes included." In an ideal world, that would be a sensible comment. Gee, I think I'll dump iTunes and install Windows Media Player instead, because I just like its looks better.
iTunes, Windows Media Player, RealPlayer: the truth is, they're all badly behaved applications, and they are a pain. They're all getting bloated, they all suffer from featuritis.
And not one of them seems to more than about 10% devoted to serving actual user needs. They are 90% devoted to pushing someone's agenda--sometimes blatantly, sometimes insidiously.
I install security patches to Windows and Mac OS fairly routinely, but frankly I'm loathe to update any media player, and terrified to install a new one.
The percentage of times that installing a new version of a media player will break something that used to work is higher than the mortality rate from playing Russian roulette.
And they all seem to grow invasivelyinto your operating system like rootlets into a sewer.
When they are clean and functional and do what I want them to do instead of what someone else wants them to do, then I will be very interested in how they look.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
"The windows one; I know it looks terrible but I can't be bothered to change to anything better"
From a purely personal point of view I use iTunes because the interface works for me not because it 'looks pretty'. The idea of software getting 'a lot better graphically' is becoming rather trite and shallow.
Most importantly the development tools MS is providing are awesome!
The trouble is, their frameworks still suck. They still don't even understand the basics of OO development. (It's model-view-controller, not model-view-"view model"). Take a look at some of the examples they've posted of (say), how to implement an animated button with Avalon: hundreds of lines of XML, for Christ's sake.
Those guys are lifetime members of the Golden Hammer-of-the-Week club. Let me know when MS has an answer to Cocoa or Quartz Composer, and I'll take another look.
But, here is why apple should be scared. MS is taking away every reason you should use OSX, with the exception "I hate MS", which Linux can cover.
Nope. They're not making a dent in the main reason for abandoning Windows, which is that it is simply not trustworthy. Exposing a Windows machine to the internet is just begging for pain. We've had well over a decade of MS putting out press releases insisting that they've gotten their act together (this time, for sure!), and it's just not true. The only way I can see Windows overcoming its basic design flaws w/r/t security is to run it in an emulator under Linux, one virtual machine per app.
I predict OSX won't survive this round with MS and Apple becomes a premium hardware supplier. Say bubye to OSX, I don't see it making it past this decade.
Apple will be selling Mac OS Eleven within three years, so you're right in a sense. However, if you want to bet that the Mac OS will be gone by the end of the decade, I'll take that bet.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Why not ....
Here, let me summarize the parent post in one concise sentence:
"Why not do things the way I do them?"
Answer : Not everyone wants to do things the way you do them.
Download my free songs!
There was one thing I noticed in these screenshots that looks like a real improvement in Vista over every previous incarnation of Windows: It looks like they've finally centralised the placement of all control panels and applications and, thank God, done away with the myriad modal dialog windows that one needed to configure for instance, any network connection.
I think Vista might actually be quite good after all.
It would seem that after all these years Microsoft would finally grasp why their Windows sucks so bad: it's mostly about _quality_, not eye candy! It's about ease of use. It's about ergonomics of the interface. The first Beta of the Vista sucked in terms of both. The second one sucks just as much as the first one. It looks pretty on the screenshots but _try to work with it_! All these blurred letters become pretty annoying in about 30 seconds. The location of interface elements is VERY weird to say at least. The interface is cluttered with unnecessary elements and it's often hard to tell whether something in that interface a part of actually _interface_ (that is, something you can interact with - a button, a link or something) or just a pretty picture on the screen. Look at all that screen space wasters! One small phrase - and half a screen empty field with cute gradient around it!
That's what good about Mac OS X interface: it looks cute, and yet it is not cluttered, not overloaded with unnecessary stuff. And while it's clear that Microsoft is trying hard to imitate Mac OS X, they throw everything thay can possibly come up with into the interface, plus a kitchen sink. It seems to me that they simply don't understand the whole concept of simple and yet powerful user interface.
Here we see a perfect example of the problem facing Microsoft. They're releasing a whole new version of the operating system, and we're looking at the media player. And we're the geek crowd!
;-)
It might not do it the best way, but Windows does everything it needs to for the average user. Most users don't really care about security, or fancy new rendering engines. They want something that works. MS seem to have decided the only way they're going to sell a new OS is with eye candy - and I think they may have a point.
Not that I'm upset to see them struggle, as a happy Linux user
Why is it that Media Player is on Version 11 and IE is version 7.
Because once Microsoft captured 97% of the browser market with no remaining effective competitive threats, they had no reason to continue development of IE; far better (from a business perspective) to focus their resources on areas in which there was viable competition. As it happens, media players has been just such an area - Real isn't the powerhouse they once were, but MusicMatch and WinAmp, and more recently, iTunes have given Microsoft ample reason to continue to release new versions of Media Player.
The only reason Microsoft is working on IE7 now is because Firefox has proven to be a viable alternative that is successfully taking market share away from IE.
You can fault Microsoft for not being much of a software company if you wish, but their business/marketing/money-making talent is second to none.
Just like Apple with the iPod, then. The only remarkable feature it has over other portable players is the click-wheel thing - but man, some funky TV ads and a "cool" factor sure make it fly off the shelves.
1)No wonder the experience with a stardock clone wears thin quickly. It's a stardock clone. It substitutes simple transparancy for DX9 shading techniques. I'm not suprised it's somewhat boring. While MS could definately be depending upon AeroGlass and some cluttered visual elements to draw people to Vista, I would argue that things are not what they seem. Not only will there surely be a lot of time spent polishing the look and feel of the final product including support for (and hopefully inclusion of) additional themes, the fact of the matter is that they're busy creating a graphical desktop standard that could be used in countless numbers of ways. You can argue that look-n-feel is a poor foot to sell an OS on, but the fact that you (and millions of others) have downloaded stardock says otherwise. "Oh, widgets and shiny buttons and transparancy are stupid and unnecessary for an OS! I get mine from 3rd party vendors! OSX is prettier!" is not a good argument.
2)Speaking of OSX, it's a solid, beautiful OS with many subtle advantages. But subtle customization and stability is not why it's sold so well. Argue this all you want, but the reality is that the vast majority of people flock to it for its beautiful layout (this does include ease of use and user experience, of course). The stability argument has been made, but anyone who has consistent trouble with pc stability is doing something wrong.
3)I can give you a darned good reason why most media players are minimalist - because they have to be. Running visual effects on the player while pushing video is problematic when it's all a hacked software-powered schema. With additional hardware comes additional options. WMP will of course come with many different skins, some of which will be big and bright to attract Joe User, and others which will surely use the Glass technique to become even more minimalistic and unobtrusive. Again, argue all you want that media player looks don't matter, and then go check out the hundreds of thousands of skins available - many of them attempting said software-based transparancy hacks. (Magic pink, anyone?)
I guess overall, I'm saying that Vista's going to be Microsoft's next entry into the OS market. Whether you think visual effects are necessary, cool, or just plain stupid doesn't matter - they're coming in next-gen OS's. If they didn't, you'd be pissed. The hardware-based visual schema will also allow for MUCH more effective and beautiful 3rd-party desktop apps. I agree that I'll spend much of my time with Vista disabling random stuff, and I AM scared to death that they'll bloat it without allowing me to disable enough elements, but I don't blame them for trying to deliver a better-looking product along with what is (finally) shaping up to be a faster, sleeker addition to the Windows family. Kudos, I say.
Now if they could only do something about that ugly taskbar...maybe a, I dunno, 'dock' or something... : D
And how much arm-twisting exactly do you think they will be required to do? I'll tell you how much: none at all. Because the Dell's and HP's of the world need to ship the latest version of whatever operating system they support, otherwise they look outdated.
Microsoft may be the bully of the IT playground but be realistic here, Windows 2000 was already good enough and I don't see any vendors shipping that anymore.