this is just...wrong...
did you see the new windows logo?
why can't they come up with something that looks at least a little professional?
I will definately not have something called Windows Vista on my computer. Even if I have to change all the goddamn strings by myself.
Vista??? I am happy with my Mac thank you, and will allow my PC to collect more dust 
lol... agree with you Localhost.... It won't be long people starts modding it to the latest Mac OS available that time, and we will hardly see that bloody lame logo on systems... and I for sure would also change the bloody strings myself. 
According to them, longhorn is completely new thing with many Blah...Blah..Blah..According to me, i feel that they are going to cheat this time too..
(Like repacking the dlls of windows 2000 with all fixes, Attaching a new interface. as in case of XP)
Also windows is like a library.you can find some windows 3.1 icons inside, even in Longhorn's ..
Ooops sorry, vista's
Lets not forget that it is still ran of DOS and that 32 bit is just a mask because all your applications only run at 16bit
I'm not buying Longhorn, I'll stay with XP for another 8 years.
xp should go to the taskbar up top, 
heh
and also looks pretty neat, i have 2 comps so ill keep this one XP and the other vista just so i can see which i like more
Lets not forget that it is still ran of DOS and that 32 bit is just a mask because all your applications only run at 16bitI'm not buying Longhorn, I'll stay with XP for another 8 years.
yep.! it runs of DOS, but it doesnt have real cmd DOS
I think Vista is a beautiful name for the next version of Windows regardless of whether it is going to have new features or not. It's definitely way better than naming it Windows 2006 or whatever. Kudos Microsoft.
the next version of windows from microsoft in 2008 will be codenamed: BOO CHA CHA. isn't that creative and exciting?
I believe it is in fact "Blackcomb"
Lets not forget that it is still ran of DOS and that 32 bit is just a mask because all your applications only run at 16bit.
You're high.
There is no "DOS" in XP.
There is a DOS interpreter.
You've got it backwards again... 16 bit is emulated, XP is a true 32bit OS.
And XP is not a repackaged Win2k, it's an new Kernel. Same with Windows 2003 Server, new kernel.
The reason you will still find Win 3.1 code in XP and Vista and all other flavors is for backward compatibility.
Next time realize the knowledge base of the members here before spewing out anti M$ garbage for which you obviously do not understand.
EDIT: Getting BACK ON TOPIC... As for the name Vista... eh... they could have done better.
The only "vista" i`ll ever see in connection to Windows is "Asta la vista" i plan to say to windows ASAP (in september :crosses fingers: )
it's hasta* la vista. and I hope I will too, maybe in August for my birthday...if not I'll see how much money I have after that and maybe work a bit and buy a Mac...I think I'll get a Powerbook.
The reason you will still find Win 3.1 code in XP and Vista and all other flavors is for backward compatibility.Next time realize the knowledge base of the members here before spewing out anti M$ garbage for which you obviously do not understand.
EDIT: As for the name Vista... eh... they could have done better.
who needs those crappy icons for compatibility ...
EDIT:
BTW XP kernel is not a from scratch kernel. It is improved and updated version of win2k kernel.
Also what about the other non-kernel stuff , which were repacked, Which you tell we dont understand,?
They can call it whatever they like itll still be crap.
EDIT:
BTW XP kernel is not a from scratch kernel. It is improved and updated version of win2k kernel.
Also what about the other non-kernel stuff , which were repacked, Which you tell we dont understand,?
Some older Win 3.1 and even Win 9x apps depend on moricons.dll being present.
Who knows why and who really cares, but that's why they are there.
Never said it was from scratch.. just new... as in not like the other. Different version.
See above comment about backward compatibility for the non-kernel stuff.
Creating something again from scratch is the worst thing you can do when creating software, especially for operating systems. There are lots and lots of code lines that fixes little things, seldom occuring bugs, security problems etc... etc.. if you start from scratch, you will throw away all this knowledge.
Kenta, there is a 16bits subsystem in w2k and xp - there's even a POSIX subsystem, but the main subsystem is the 32bits one. If you launch a 16bit "DOS" application, you will notice the wowexec.exe it's running it.
The name Vista isn't as catchy as XP was. It actually sounds like one of those linux distro's .. fedora, gentoo, vista, ubuntu
Originally Posted by AndreasVThe name Vista isn't as catchy as XP was. It actually sounds like one of those linux distro's .. fedora, gentoo, vista, ubuntu
...Dooku, Palpatine, Naboo...
Now THAT would be awesome .
-NC
The name Vista isn't as catchy as XP was. It actually sounds like one of those linux distro's .. fedora, gentoo, vista, ubuntu
My thoughts exactly... sounds very linuxy if that's a word.
Just add a new font to Windows to see how much Microsoft cares about its OS; the dialog box that appears looks like 3.1/95, and there is no excuse for backward compatibility in this case.
True, you can't trash the code and start from scratch for a next version, but there are many corners in Windows that prove it's an OS carelessly written (not to mention the number of security patches after its release)
After some extra thought, I disliked the Vista name even more. It sounds like "we're a small company with a cool name to catch your attention". And these names automatically make me cautious. It's just bad publicity.
A plain "Windows" with something like "version 8.23.4645" in tiny letters would be way better.
My God this thread full of ignorant zealot kids.
How can some of you bash it BEFORE you even tried it or have any REAL clue what will it have or not have?
I`m the first one to say i hate Windows but bashing something before it even came out? Gimme a break!
Let's wait and see what happens shall we?
PS kudos at Ave and rj for actual info about the OS. Someone should teach these kids a lesson
As it goes to the meaing of the new name 'Vista', in translation from 'Latvian' (damn, I don't know how's spelled the language spoken in Latvia) 'vista' means 'chicken' !
@Unbe
I'm not bashing Longhorn/Vista. I haven't even tried a Longhorn version yet. But we've got used to OSes from Microsoft that are either buggy (BSOD), unsecure, and unstable from time to time.
Microsoft OSes waste more and more of the usuful space on the desktop (check the titlebars in 95/XP/Longhorn, or Folder Tasks in Explorer windows etc), demand more HD space from one version to another, more CPU power/RAM etc.
Is that what an OS is supposed to do? The real purpose of an operating system is to provide the platform for your apps to work as good as possible, with the least possible cost in resources/memory/everything. Microsoft has gotten us used to exactly the opposite. That's why most of us will have to upgrade our systems to enjoy Vista.
@Ken While I tend to agree with you about the purpose of an OS, OS X is just as much a disk and resource hog as XP.
If you were to perform a typical (default) install of both OS's, they take up just about the same amount of disk space. In fact OS X will take a bit more by about 250 to 300 MB.
By default, I mean leave all the check boxes alone, don't select or deselect anything. I've done this with every release of OS X and all it's doing is getting BIGGER.
XP really hasn't changed it's install size since there is yet to be an upgrade. The SP's have added little to it's overall size as the majority of their content is replacing existing files, not adding.
And just like Windows, with every release of OS X, the hardware requirements for "optimal" performance of the OS keep going up. Try running 10.4 on a G3 500... it will run, but slower than dog sh!t.
Same applies to XP... it will install on an old PII 233, but it will run like crap as well.
And as far as the wasting desktop space... Look at the dock... I mean really. It's cool, but it's frikkin huge!!!.
And don't say, well you can hide it, because you can hide the taskbar in Windows as well.
So that point is moot.
Same applies to the other Explorer features you mentioned, you can turn them off with the click of a button or change their size at anytime.
Again.. the point is moot.
My God this thread full of ignorant zealot kids.How can some of you bash it BEFORE you even tried it or have any REAL clue what will it have or not have?
I`m the first one to say i hate Windows but bashing something before it even came out? Gimme a break!
Let's wait and see what happens shall we?
PS kudos at Ave and rj for actual info about the OS. Someone should teach these kids a lesson
That's pretty good coming from someone who came storming onto MSN and *****ed to me about how terrible a product the Shuffle was, less than 24 hours after it was announced
@ Ken - i wasn`t talking about you And in Longhorn, pardon me, Vista , we will not have BSODs, NEVER! Now there are RSODs (Red Screens of Death) I also think HD space OS takes is pretty much irrelevant these days. Even a 40gig HD will suffice for OS + tons of apps.
@ Simon -
BTW i still think shuffle needs a screen and as much as i love the design, the functionality IS crippled compared to other flash-based players.
@ Simon -BTW i still think shuffle needs a screen and as much as i love the design, the functionality IS crippled compared to other flash-based players.
"bashing something before it even came out?" - I do believe that is exactly what you were doing when we were discussing the Shuffle. But to be honest, I really don't care that much so I'm gonna drop this. Just wanted to catch you out Unbe; couldn't have you getting too full of yourself with your "mod powers" and your "Serb chicks"
Aqua-Soft Forums