Windows Vista Build 5231 Review

But.... by silverkniveshotmail. · 2005-10-20 00:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:But.... by bigman2003 · 2005-10-20 00:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

I need it to burn CD's.

I need it to sync with my portable player.

I need it to do a good job of scanning my computer for media.

Despite everyone's best guess...I do not need it to be a portal for purchasing anything...

--
No reason to lie.
Re:But.... by Kjella · 2005-10-20 00:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

Well, as far as video goes I'm more than happy with Media Player Classic. It's basicly a WMP6.4(!) clone but able to play DVDs+++. No skinning, in fact 99.9% of the time I use it is in fullscreen playback with no UI at all. Haven't seen any feature in WMP7-10 that would make me change back.

As far as music goes, I know a lot of people have much more desire to organize and sort and do multiple playlists and ratings and even eyecandy while listening to music. Both Winamp, WMP and iTunes have made a lot of progress since Winamp 2.x here. I'm mostly like you, not really in the market but it's definately there.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:But.... by julesh · 2005-10-20 00:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I need it to burn CD's

Why not use a CD writing application for this?

I need it to sync with my portable player.

I'd rather just be able to drag & drop files I wanted to use on the player onto the player's icon under My Computer, rather than having to use a media player to manage it.

I need it to do a good job of scanning my computer for media.

Why not store all your media in a single location? That's a much simpler solution.
Re:But.... by LiquidCoooled · 2005-10-20 01:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why not use a CD writing application for this?

People like to connect the dots. "i go *here* to play my media, why can't i burn my playlists from here as well?"

I'd rather just be able to drag & drop files I wanted to use on the player onto the player's icon under My Computer, rather than having to use a media player to manage it.

two words: Custom playlists. Instead of having to reselect an entire range of files stored in seperate subfolders (from the original albums) I can simply transfer the playlist in one go (see above burning as well).

Why not store all your media in a single location? That's a much simpler solution.

Because "My Music" is not your music, and shared music is not everything on my machine, and I don't always want everything together, and because whichever p2p software by default stores it in one place, and something else stores it in another, and my mp3 player comes up in a different drive, and instead of being a jack of all trades and needing to tell people how to configure every single piece of media software on the planet (to look for media in one place) I would just like to scan my machine and find it all for me.

I understand you like operating using single individual steps, but not everyone is as savvy as yourself and just wants a simple life, your steps may be simple, and once configured it might be easy to manage, but its getting started thats the problem.

People already have the option to do all the things you suggest, and most who do similar to yourself won't like this new media player, but for the rest of the population, the suggested features don't seem out of step at all.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:But.... by Jugalator · 2005-10-20 01:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

You prefer alternative solutions probably because you attack the organizational problem from a different angle. While your solutions makes perfect sense to someone working on a file system level -- you have tidy organized music so it's easy to find & burn, and don't need to scan -- many users work on a more abstract level with playlists. If you do, suddenly the playlist sorting intelligence and logical grouping of music from possibly more than one folder (or even drives) etc, makes a lot more sense because instead of opening up a separate app to select and burn your music, you click a single button to take care of burning your sorted list already open. The same thing with syncing. No need to open folders and drag & drop stuff each time you want to do this. Sure, you can make a script for the job or whatever, but then you just do a different form of preparation to simplify your job. Another user may instead of that form of automation prefer the media player's.

Store all your media in a single location? Yes, it's a much more simple solution, and also less flexible as you aren't working on an abstract enough level to e.g. cover multiple physical and/or network drives, and so on. Sometimes you actually want this, and then you can use one of these players, and you'd once again get "your single location" point of access -- the media player's metadata-powered music library.

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Re:But.... by MobyDisk · 2005-10-20 01:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

People like to connect the dots. "i go *here* to play my media, why can't i burn my playlists from here as well?"

That is an excellent point. It is also a perfect example of how people still don't understand the desktop. You don't go to Windows Media Player to play your media. You go to "My Music" or wherever. People still use the old DOS way of doing stuff: Run the application, then click open, then browse to the location. That's backwards. If they went to the location first, then they could do all of the things the GP post is talking about right from there (copy, rename, delete, organize, burn, play, ...) and you won't need the application to then have al lthe same features as Explorer.

You point out the issues with sharing, and applications creating multiple folders, etc. So you do make a good point: Users won't ever "get" the desktop analogy until the software uses it properly. Until 95% of apps start using these folders properly, it won't be useful.
Re:But.... by ivan256 · 2005-10-20 01:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'd rather just be able to drag & drop files I wanted to use on the player onto the player's icon under My Computer, rather than having to use a media player to manage it.

You know, I used to think that too. So I bought an Aiwa CDC-MP3 for my car, and a few more CD MP3 players after that, and what I learned from it was that organizing music files manually takes way too long, and is a total pain in the ass.

It's so much nicer to highlight a bunch of tracks and hit a button, knowing that they're going to be organized nicely for you on your device or CD than it is to make folders, make sure the file names sort properly, etc...

Drag and Drop is overrated.
Re:But.... by MBGMorden · 2005-10-20 01:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm also a big fan of WMP Classic, but it does have a habit of locking on loading a video every now and then. Not a big problem, just close it out and reopen, but it can be annoying. I'm guessing this will be fixed soon ehgouh though.

It definately works out better than Microsoft's Media player. Only thing I use it for are the couple of DRM'd files that I have that WMP Classic won't handle. Still waiting for a crack for WMP9 Video DRM so that I can unprotect my files and ditch MS's player completely.

I still use Winamp to play my audio. I've never found a user interface that I liked as much :).

I do also keep a Gentoo system as well on which I use XMMS and Totem for my media playing needs :).

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Re:But.... by Drachemorder · 2005-10-20 02:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

I actually prefer the DOS way of doing things. My mind associates tasks with programs more than with filetypes. If I want to burn a CD, I think in terms of what program I need to do that. If I want to listen to MP3s, I think in terms of what program I need to do that.
I end up using stuff like Winamp 2.X and Media Player Classic, because those things do exactly what I expect them to without a lot of extra fluff.
Re:But.... by ultranova · 2005-10-20 03:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

That is an excellent point. It is also a perfect example of how people still don't understand the desktop. You don't go to Windows Media Player to play your media. You go to "My Music" or wherever. People still use the old DOS way of doing stuff: Run the application, then click open, then browse to the location.

That's because the current systems are still designed around the old DOS way of doing things, instead of being truly object-oriented - they just try to look like it. Click on a document in a folder. What happens ? A program starts up, reads the file and presumably shows you the results. This is, behind the scenes, exactly what happens in DOS. Furthermore, the program cannot be easily reused by other programs, unless it was specifically designed that way. Modern GUIs simply generate the command line automatically; but the actual operating paradigm is unchanged.

This system is very inefficient. Imagine you have several documents open at once. For each of these, there is at least a single thread (and associated stack and other system resources) that does nothing but sits around waiting for events most of the time.

The system is also very fragile. The desktop system (as well as almost all other systems, like web and database servers) depends heavily on communication between different programs. However, when heavy communication meets the combination of direct memory access programming paradigm with no bound checking of any kind of C and the difficulty of checking for and defending against every possible kind of malformed communication, buffer overflows are an unavoidable result. The situation is not helped by the nonexistent security paradigms of Unix (try to make it impossible for a program to write anywhere except in a subdirectory of your home directory without having root privileges on Linux) or Windows.

So, what is needed is an operating system designed from grounds up.

Make the system completely object-based. An application is not a program; it is a class that implements the Application interface. It doesn't get started, it gets instantiated. When you click on a file on a file manager, the a thread calls the appropriate even-handler method on the manager; that method most likely creates a new thread and has it instantiate the file viewer object; when the viewer's initialization method has been completed, the thread returns and, since there's no more methods on the stack, it exits (of course the initialization method is free to run as long as neccessary, or spawn a thousand other threads if needed). When the viewer needs to be told of a keypress or mouseclick or needs to be redrawn (or simply when some timer set by the initialization method expires) a new thread gets created for the purpose. No threads are wasted on waiting in the event loops of a hundred viewers, no more single thread managing 10 different windows (which means that if it crashes, they all close, and if any is engaged in a long-running operation, they all block).

Such objects are inherently reusable. Currently, if you want code to be reused, you need to put it to a library. This requires extra effort from the programmers point of view, and so programs and libraries tend to be strictly separated; if you want to reuse the functionality of another program (like burn CD's), you'd better hope that the code is in a library or that the other program was designed to be remotely controlled. With programs made by combining objects, however, the chances are that the burning code is in a class of its own, and can be easily reused.

So, basically, desktop paradigm is not understood by many because it is not implemented by any operating system that I know of. Windows and Gnome just make a show of supporting it; under the hood, everything still works just like it ever did, which means that you get a lot less grief by using the system in a program-centric fashion, for that is how it really operates, deep down.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:But.... by damiam · 2005-10-20 03:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Most music listeners keep their media players constantly loaded. If I want to open iTunes, all it takes is a click on the taskbar and it pops right up. It's certainly no slower than opening a terminal window. And once iTunes is up, all I have to do is type "Stormb" in the search box (or however much of the name it takes to uniquely determine the album). Click the first song, and iTunes will play the whole album in sequence. Total time: 3 seconds. It's much faster than fiddling with a command line (it takes more than one second to type 123 mp3/Di[tab]/St[tab]/*; I'm a fairly fast typer and it took me five). Now on the other end, when I get a new CD, I just stick it in, click "import", and I'm done. If I otherwise acquire MP3 files, I just drag them into iTunes and it automatically copies them to my library folder, sorts them into a directory structure, and copies them to my iPod on next sync. Meanwhile, you're manually managing the directory structure and renaming all your new music to fit your naming conventions, which takes a lot more time for really no benefits. What do you do if you want to shuffle-play a certain album, or your entire library? I'm sure it's possibly with some elaborate perl wizardry, but you can't seriously tell me it's easier than clicking the "shuffle" button.

--
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Re:But.... by binarybum · 2005-10-20 04:12 · Score: 4, Funny

Are you kidding?? Desktop media players are so far behind! They have to catch up to network television! I want a media player with a constant scroll ticker, animated graphics that pop up and consume the lower left quadrant of the screen every minute or so, and a memory and processor heavy 3D rendering engine that runs all the time just in case when I'm watching the credits for a movie I want to tilt them into the screen at a 35degree angle and shrink them so that I have room to watch advertisements that stream into my media player and are saved to my HD while I was watching the movie. But they'll be totally kick-ass advertisements geared towards me because the media player will automatically send microsoft a list of all media titles on my computer so they can build a psychological profile. Oh, and it damn well better support animated skins so I can make it look like it's on fire. I hear they might even integrate clippy the paper clip in WMP-11!

--
ôó
Re:But.... by ultranova · 2005-10-20 04:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

I guess you don't know that the ability to use programs when programming other programs or even just on one command line with the input of one piped into the other is the main advantage of a CLI (as you call it "the old DOS way").

I am quite aware of this property of CLI. We, however, are talking about GUI programs that don't communicate using standard input/output; because of this, the ability to redirect said input and output is pretty useless for communicating between them. It does work well when a graphical program runs a nongraphical one to perform some task, such as with Grip using cdparanoia for ripping a CD and oggenc for encoding it to ogg files, but it would be unlikely to be able to use them if they were graphical applications instead.

GUIs are totally different from that way to use a computer as using one program from another is usually only possible when the programmer of that program intended it the be used in exactly that way.

Thank you for restating my point. Perhaps you might also be interested in commenting on my thoughts on how to remedy this ?

In addition to that you seem to suffer from "OO is the best and greatest and usable for everything and inherently good"-Syndrom.

No. I am, however, saying that the desktop is object-oriented in design, but the underlaying system is not, and this causes problems. I'm also saying that in a typical desktop environment most open windows aren't actively doing anything most of the time, so it is a waste of resources to assign each one a thread and stack, and the efforts to alleviate this waste in current system (such as Nautilus and Firefox having a single memory space and presumably a single thread too for all open windows) leads to instabilities and annoying lack of responsiveness.

Firefox blocks all windows when opening a Slashdot story with lots of comments, and Nautilus (the Gnome file and desktop manager) randomly stops responding for a while when viewing folders with plenty of images. Understandable - it needs to either generate thumbnails and store them for later retrieval, or retrieve them from the store - but annoying nonetheless, since other Nautilus windows lock too; the single thread is busy elsewhere.

Basically, the current idea of how an operating system works is based running running batch tasks, and is fundamentally different than the desktop/GUI system, which is based on reacting to events. Since the event-based model allows one to run batch tasks too (just run them upon receiving the initialization/constructor event), but also supports todays needs much better than pure batch task approach, it is superior.

Are you by any chance a Java programmer?

I have used C, Pascal (in both Turbo Pascal and Delphi incarnations, altought I've forgotten most about it), Python, Bash scripts, BAT (command.com) scipts, PHP, Basic (an unknown variant - it was a long time ago; but it was a variant with line numbers and no functions, unless you count gosub), plpgsql, and Java. I like the Java the best this far. Decide the answer for yourself based on this data.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

Re:Not working by bwy · 2005-10-20 00:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Also, what is this article supposed to be about? Windows Media Player, or Vista?

Feh... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-20 00:07 · Score: 5, Funny

Phantom Menace had pretty graphics too...

for godsake use a mirror by phase_9 · 2005-10-20 00:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

I can't even read TFA if I wanted to!

Looks Ok... by Sebilrazen · 2005-10-20 00:08 · Score: 3, Funny

..but so does a gold plated turd.

More screenies here (if /.'ed)

--
"There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.

Re:Looks Ok... by pimpimpim · 2005-10-20 00:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Those screenshots don't really look like a program to me. Are you sure it's not a powerpoint presentation or something? Maybe they merged WMP in powerpoint... Really what's so difficult in making a player with one big playlist and the usual start/stop/volume buttons? I use xmms on linux and an older winamp version for windows, default skin, it has just the things I need an I can make is at big/small as I want.

--
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling

Better looking media player? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-20 00:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Better looking media player? by Koiu+Lpoi · 2005-10-20 01:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ever used professional music production software and VSTi instruments? It's worse - they seem to think that if an interface works in hardware, it'll obviously work great in software. With a mouse. This paradigm needs to stop.

off google by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-20 00:10 · Score: 5, Informative

I typed build 5231 into google ... heck out the sreenshots from winsupersite:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_5231 _gallery_02.asp

Re:off google by Lord+Bitman · 2005-10-20 00:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

MIRRORS by dsginter · 2005-10-20 00:11 · Score: 4, Informative

Mirrors

--
More

Marketing first, function second... by SpasticThinker · 2005-10-20 00:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

Microsoft again proves it knows how to sell a product. Not that graphical changes/updates are a bad thing - far from it, I like my eye-candy as do most. The most important thing about it, however, is that looks sell.

Now maybe since the thing looks prettier, they'll start working on adding some revolutionary functionality. I think that consumers valuing function over appearance are the minority of those who will be spending money, however.

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.

Re:Marketing first, function second... by Red+Flayer · 2005-10-20 00:17 · Score: 2, Informative

"Now maybe since the thing looks prettier, they'll start working on adding some revolutionary functionality"

Well, that's a problem. If you decide to add functionality, especially revolutionary functionality, after you've fleshed out your framework and GUI, then you have weird-ass code that isn't cohesive, nor coherent. You should start with the functionality, and finish with the bells and whistles.

--
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai

Re:And? by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · 2005-10-20 00:11 · Score: 3, Funny

If I wanted to know how Vista was doing...

Dude, these stories don't get posted here for information value - it's so we can reduce their pitiful Windows servers to a heap of smoking rubble. Which we're very successful at doing, thankyewverymuch.

--
This is where the serious fun begins.

Re:And? by Mr.+Underbridge · 2005-10-20 00:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

If I wanted to know how Vista was doing I'd become a platnium gold sponsored MSDN subscriber and read about it in my the newsletter from Balmer himself.

Does the same apply to the latest weekly Ubuntu release or Mac speed bump, or do you have sliding standards for different products?

Too much Player! by Jjeff1 · 2005-10-20 00:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

Re:Too much Player! by Jugalator · 2005-10-20 01:21 · Score: 2, Informative

Winamp was good because there was virtually nothing wasted in the display

Then you haven't seen the "new and improved" Winamp 5. ;-)

When will Microsoft and Real catch up?

Uh? WMP 9

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!

Complimenting on how smoothly stuff scrolls... by QuantumPion · 2005-10-20 00:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

...is not a good sign for people who don't have the best hardware. The article talks about how smoothly WMP11 ran and how they were able to easily scroll through long lists of songs without hiccups. If you ask me, that is not really a feature or something to get excited about. It's something you'd take for granted as being able to work in the first place.

Quote:

We have never seen any WMP run this smooth especially on a beta release. While this might not mean much to anybody, it's a step in the right direction for Microsoft. Only thing we need to check now is how smoothly it runs while running a plethora of other applications in the end.

...

One thing we would like to mention is that our library had 1000+ songs, but there were no hiccups while scrolling through the list. It was almost like scrolling down Google's search results, which is very smooth and hassle-free. This could be due to implementation of Microsoft's new graphics technologies, namely XAML and WGF 2.0. Needless to say, this is definitely something to get excited about, since we can clearly remember the times when we launched WMP 10 and it would get stuck at the guide page, thereby making the user experience terrible.

Re:Complimenting on how smoothly stuff scrolls... by grimJester · 2005-10-20 01:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

One thing we would like to mention is that our library had 1000+ songs, but there were no hiccups while scrolling through the list. It was almost like scrolling down Google's search results, which is very smooth and hassle-free. This could be due to implementation of Microsoft's new graphics technologies, namely XAML and WGF 2.0.

This makes you wonder... Why would you describe how smooth scrolling down a text-only html page is? Modern computers are around 1000 times faster than they were when that got smooth. This review seems like a propaganda piece for the ignorant; would anyone who knows anything about computers think scrolling through a list of 1000 file names would be slow without "new graphics technologies"?

Slashdotted Already... by inkdesign · 2005-10-20 00:14 · Score: 5, Funny

Are they running their webserver on it?

Re:Not working by bigman2003 · 2005-10-20 00:14 · Score: 5, Funny

It doesn't really matter, I'll make my standard response here:

"This looks pretty good- the graphic stuff doesn't really excite me, but I am interested in the way that it will integrate with my portable devices. I really like the move toward the better/more integrated syncing in Windows Media 10, so this should be even better.

While I am not too concerned about the new features, I wonder what the hardware specs of this will be. I guess I will need to upgrade my computer, but I'll wait on that. I'll probably move to Vista about 12 months after launch. But at work I am in the process of getting a new computer and I'm trying to load it up with everything possible. It's hard to explain to my boss (a gamer) why I need the best possible video card in the workstation I run a text editor on.

Oh, and I wonder if we'll be able to skin this version of Windows. I eventually liked the bubblegum blue theme, but it took a while. I hope they have a classic (bubblegum blue) mode!"

There..that's it. This is what I would have said if the article was available. And I would have tried to post it as close to the top of the page as possible (replying to another post which is unrelated) just to whore some Karma...which I've already whored enough of that it doesn't really matter.

--
No reason to lie.

AmaroK by hummassa · 2005-10-20 00:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

(needed) manages your albums
(pretty) gets album cover to display so you can visualize
(good) manages your preferences/statistics (you can see what you are listening to)
(pretty) presents those informations in an aesthetic way
(good) or just gets minimized to the systray
(good) all operations are two to three clicks away.

--
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048

seriously by nuggetman · 2005-10-20 00:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

what's with all the dead space around toolbars, blocks of text, etc?

--
...and that's all there is to it.

Re:seriously by TuringTest · 2005-10-20 02:41 · Score: 2, Informative

what's with all the dead space around toolbars, blocks of text, etc?

Ever heard of Fitt's Law?

It's also a good thing to display information in a clean, uncluttered. It improves efficiency when scanning the screen for the information you need, and it reduces stress (really!) and makes for an easy-to-love interface.

--
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.

Runner up by network23 · 2005-10-20 00:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Runner up by MajorDick · 2005-10-20 00:30 · Score: 2, Funny

"And give us Mac users ammo for years to come."

Yeah all 39 of you.......

Some working screenshots by jgritz · 2005-10-20 00:20 · Score: 4, Informative

are here

In other news by Stephan+Seidt · 2005-10-20 00:21 · Score: 4, Funny

Steve Balmer just sat down and wrote a review about the new ... Wait, there were any chairs left to sit?

Re:In other news by Stephan+Seidt · 2005-10-20 02:45 · Score: 2, Informative

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/03/05 15250

Mmmm Fresh.... by lifebouy · 2005-10-20 00:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Re:Mmmm Fresh.... by whyne · 2005-10-20 00:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Vista is going to flop." This may be the case in the short term, but MS's OEM contracts will save them in the long term.
"Hello this is Ms. Patel with "insert company name, Dell, Gateway, whatever..." "Yes, I would like to purchise the 1299 special that includes the free printer and flat screen."
"Eccelent," She says.
"Just do me one favor, take out Vista."
Ms. Patel replies, "I don't understand."
I reiterate, "I do not want windows."
"Ok that will be 1499 and no printer or flat screen."
Re:Mmmm Fresh.... by jcr · 2005-10-20 01:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Vista is going to flop,

That depends on your definition of "flop". MS is going to arm-twist the Dells and HPs of the world to include it with all new machines whenever it ships, so there will be many millions of copies of it inflicted on the public in any case. Sometime four or five years from now, it will be 30% or more of their installed base.

Somehow, Apple manages to get their users to take up each new version of OS X at a pretty good clip.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

A plague on all media players by dpbsmith · 2005-10-20 00:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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!

Re:Cotton candy interfaces suck by CyricZ · 2005-10-20 00:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Indeed! I find these new attempts at GUI creation to be terrible.

I mean, look at this screenshot:
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/showcase/vista5 231_2_cpl.jpg

Look at all the text there! That's not a very good interface for finding the icon you want quickly and efficiently. There's too much textual distraction.

There there is something like: http://www.winsupersite.com/images/showcase/vista5 231_wmp11.jpg

It takes forever to find out what it is you can click on, since buttons and other components are not well defined. I mean, is each album entry something I can click on? What will happen if I do click on them?

I hope that the Linux desktop community does not fall victim to the same shenanigans. GUIs are best when they consist of well-designed components, each with a clear and well-understood function. Microsoft's new fascination with random text/image mixtures is often counterintuitive and leads to applications which are difficult to use.

--
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.

Re:Not working by bhtooefr · 2005-10-20 00:32 · Score: 2, Informative

Show me a category view, and then I can comment.

OS X appears to have a decent category view.

However, the Vista screenshot you linked was in Classic view. Not only that, but it was in details view.

XP's category view kinda blows, but let's see the Category view on Vista first.

(Posted by someone who will NOT be running Vista. I'm just interested because I may well end up having to support the thing...)

PC Mag has the pictures to by bigHairyDog · 2005-10-20 00:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

You'll find all of the pictures here

--

foo mane padme hum

Media Centre Shell? by Malc · 2005-10-20 00:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does this version have the Media Centre Shell in it? I was under the impression that Vista would incorporate the eHome Shell from Windows XP Media Center Edition, but the Vista Beta 1 release didn't seem to have it.

Re:Not working by jcr · 2005-10-20 00:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Link /.'d already?? I get timeout errors.

Slashdotted, or just an XP server? ;-)

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Attractive is subjective by Darth+Daver · 2005-10-20 01:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

Most things Microsoft produces look tasteless, garish, and gaudy to me. They remind me of a fat Anna Nicole Smith with bright, Mimi makeup caked on. The default XP look reminds me of Sesame Street or Teletubbies. Apple's stuff looks much more refined and elegant in comparison. That's my subjective opinion. Some people like Ferraris. I prefer Porsche.

I can't get to the article, but I doubt Microsoft will left me down by elevating their "style" above the lowest common denominator. Besides, in a Media Player, I spend much more time looking at the media than the player.

iTunes by Anonymous Coward · 2005-10-20 01:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Linux killed OSX. by jcr · 2005-10-20 01:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

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."

Re:Cotton candy interfaces suck by AaronLawrence · 2005-10-20 01:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

It seems since the web got popular, nobody cares about making things you can manipulate look like it (e.g. buttons that look pressable). You just cram whatever pretty stuff on the screen you want, and [maybe] put some mouseover highlight so people can simply move the mouse over every item on the screen to tell what is clickable. So simple and efficient! :/

--
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke

More Trash From the Fisher-Price-GUI Developers by Prototerm · 2005-10-20 01:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

First of all, Aero Glass sucks. I've been working with a Stardock clone of this look and feel for a few weeks now in XP, and it wears thin pretty quickly, adding nothing at all to the OS experience. Other than a sucky look and feel, what's left? Fixes for bugs that never should have hit XP in the first place? New bugs caused by MS putting functionality in the OS that doesn't belong there (e.g., RSS feeds)? How about a search engine for people who put files in random places on their hard drive, then complain when they can't find anything (Wanted: an automated search engine that works with socks and underwear)?

As for Media Player's GUI, does anyone stare at their media player all day, admiring it, or do you fire up a playlist and then minimize it (or if playing video, maximize it to get rid of the GUI entirely).

There's nothing whatever in Vista worth waiting for. What is there I neither want nor need. Right now, I'm running a clone of the Mac OSX GUI on XP. It's easy on the eyes, and doesn't require a video card from Industrial Light and Magic to run.

Sorry, Redmond. Not interested.

--
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)

Re:More Trash From the Fisher-Price-GUI Developers by penguin_strut · 2005-10-20 03:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

First off, let me say that I agree that some shiny window borders aren't going to save Vista. However...
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

Re:Cotton candy interfaces suck by 4889 · 2005-10-20 01:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Okay okay, everyone enjoys a windows jab, but now your just being silly.

posted sc 1:Look at all the text there! That's not a very good interface for finding the icon you want quickly and efficiently. There's too much textual distraction.

What are you talking about? Youre basically looking at Windows explorer there. You have problems reading that? Besides, its a fucking LIST view.

posted sc 2:It takes forever to find out what it is you can click on, since buttons and other components are not well defined. I mean, is each album entry something I can click on? What will happen if I do click on them?

Sheesh, even if the entries arent highlighted at rollover, if youve made it that far in the interface Id hope you wouldnt be at a loss as to how to click on your own freaking records. What do you want, anyway? You want everything hypertexted?

Do you need the START button hypertexted?

Linux killed OSX my ass by theolein · 2005-10-20 01:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Uhm, and VS2005 is free with the OS right? Why do you think OSX is so popular with indie developers? That's right, sherlock, the tools are free with the OS.

I do agree that Microsoft will be much more compelling with the release of Vista, but I don't think Micorosoft will be able to kill Apple as easily as all that. Quite a few features in Vista were copied from OSX (Remember the early Longhorn releases with that huge sidebar on the right? That dissapeared after Microsoft saw OSX 10.4). And while sparkle will make development of user interfaces much easier, It doesn't mean much since the people who develop web interfaces with Flash are not the people who develop applicationn interface with Sparkle. The real competitor to Flash is the Expression engine (Called Acrylic or something) that will make web graphic easier but only for those who run IE. MS is trying to counter the IE only syndrome by offering crapped out versions of the Sparkle runtime for other platforms, but I seriously doubt there will be much uptake with those. The only way it would work would be if it was fully cross platform and Microsoft is far too greedy to ever let that happen.

So no, I don't think Vista will kill OSX. It will make Apple have to fight harder to compete, but that's good.

Summary by geeber · 2005-10-20 01:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

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!

Re:Not working by ikkonoishi · 2005-10-20 02:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Windows.

Compact Alphabetical list > Giant oversized icons

Re:Not working by Ucklak · 2005-10-20 02:08 · Score: 2, Informative

So browser development stopped at Version 6 in 2001 and the antitrust suit probably made Microsoft scared to develop their browser anymore other than security patches.

In regards to Media Players, they were on version 6 for the longest time IIRC then 6.4 became the defacto player and favorite among many because it was lightweight and fast.
Someone can correct me, I'm just going from memory here:

7 started that DRM crap and had that skinnable crap as well and was a resource hog. There was a Mac version but I don't think that skins were available.
8 was XP exclusive and I don't know what was different from 7 to 8.
9 seemed to be an update to 7 but didn't seem to do anything that 7 didn't do. There is a Mac version of this version where it is current.
10 introduced HD.
What pray tell is version 11 going to do that 10 can't?

Now, IIRC, the only Windows version that the Media Player can be removed is the N series. Will Vista allow the media player to be removed by default or will it be some Vista-N version only allowed in the EU?

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.

It's the classic view of the Control Panel by janaagaard · 2005-10-20 02:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Indeed! I find these new attempts at GUI creation to be terrible.

I mean, look at this screenshot:
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/showcase/vista5 231_2_cpl.jpg

Look at all the text there! That's not a very good interface for finding the icon you want quickly and efficiently. There's too much textual distraction.

You're looking at the Control Panel in classic view in details mode, i.e. the nerdiest mode. I guess you point is the exact reason that they've added a categorized view since Windows XP. In XP you can stick with the classic view and remove the describing text by choosing another view mode like tiles. I'm pretty shure that Vista will keep these possiblities.

One positive aspect of Vista amongst the noise by theolein · 2005-10-20 02:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Graphics might be pretty, but the interface SUCKS by dniq · 2005-10-20 02:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Not working by Armour+Hotdog · 2005-10-20 02:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

57, not 39 by network23 · 2005-10-20 03:32 · Score: 2, Funny

"Yeah all 39 of you..."

Hey, there are now 57 of us. Apple reported a 48 percent year-over-year growth in Mac shipments in Q4.

Really?? by paran0rmal · 2005-10-20 03:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Not working by LifesABeach · 2005-10-20 03:46 · Score: 2, Funny

"... with more anticipation surrounding it than Internet Explorer 7 ..."

What can I get for my $300? I could get Knoppix, and my $300...

Re:Not working by nmb3000 · 2005-10-20 04:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

A couple other views of the Vista control panel:

Category view from build 5112. Another full screen shot with the menu bar on the left.

Icon view

Personally, I use the classic view in XP, setting it to show a menu in the Start Menu. I know where I want to go, and it's nice that the options haven't changed much since 95. It's nice that they don't go renaming and regrouping the different options every release.

I do like the category view in Vista better than XP. The "quick links" to oft-used functions in each category are listed under the main category name, a big improvement. The fewer sub-menus I have to open, the better.

--
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)

Re:Not working by NatasRevol · 2005-10-20 04:40 · Score: 3, Informative

WTF, did you even try?

Go to the desktop, View>Show View Options,

You can:
-change the icon size
-change the text size
-uncheck snap to grid

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

Re:Not working by bhtooefr · 2005-10-20 05:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes, I do use classic in XP.

However, the new Category view is something I would actually use, as it looks like a no-BS thing. Like you said, the quick links are now there, making things easier. And, in Category view on XP, sometimes I have to guess as to where a control panel will be (sometimes, it's under two levels!), so I just drop it to Classic, where I can go by alphabetic order.

Internet Explorer 7 by MikeFM · 2005-10-20 09:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Most eagerly awaited Microsoft product besides IE7 huh? I just want Microsoft products to stop sucking.

All I ask for is an IE7 that is standards compliant with at least HTML4, CSS1, CSS2, Javascript, and can properly show alpha transparency in PNG's. I'm so sick of having to make an entirely different stylesheet just for IE to display my website's in a way that is usable.

They could amaze me by properly supporting SVG and canvas too. I can't imagine IE supporting SVG and canvas any sooner than the year 2020 at the rate they're going. If they had any brains whatsoever they'd give up the IE rendering engine and just use Gecko. To me, it seems that would be the easiest and cheapest way to keep end-users from switching to other browsers such as Firefox.

As long as IE sucks I have no reason to think Microsoft has the ability to make a decent program let alone a decent operating system and dsktop enviroment.

--
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.

Slashdot Mirror

Windows Vista Build 5231 Review

73 of 390 comments (clear)