Running Vista/Longhorn

Hi everyone.

I just installed my GENUINEcopy of Windows Codename Longhorn (Vista)

It's build 5112, So it doesn't have transparency.

If anybody wants to know anything to do with Vista, please post here.

So far it is a huge rip off of OS X. I've got a screenshot of Explorer here >

With a little tweaking you could easily have the explorer as a 1:1 copy of Finder, because of the features they copied. :mad:

Other than IE and Explorer, everything else is almost identicle to XP.

Post here if you want to know anything. I might try installing Flyakite later.

~Wuzzie

#322791

hahaha. i dare you to install flyakite.. better yet, i double dog dare you

#322795

i think flyakite might break it. since it replaces system files, the files it might replace might be written differently, or not be there at all, so there would be lots of additional files :x. grats on the install though, too bad you didnt get the latest build .

btw did you install it over XP? or did you just wipe your comp and do a fresh install?

#322797

Sakurakira - I'm dual booting between XP and Vista.

I still don't know if I should install Flyakite or not... I wonder what the result would be like?

~Wuzzie

#322799

I guarantee that Flyakite will fux the system in some way... I REALLY don't recommend trying it.

#322801

do it do it do it!

#322802

do it do it do it!

why arn't you a Marquis de Sade in training?

#322803

5112 has glass.

It still has a fair amount of features over XP and yes, the explorer windows are 1:1.1 copies of the Finder.

There is no arguing with that.

#322816

how are the explorer windows 1:1 copies of the finder? 1:1 means exactly.. first off, they look nothing like the finder in tiger.. the functionality is not exact.

im so sick of the mac cult and the aqua emulation communities saying that microsoft is copying apple.. at best, microsoft is just adding features to keep up with today's standards..if apple happened to roll out the features first, because apple is update happy, then so be it.. but it doesnt mean that microsoft is copying mac.. i mean, if a distrubution of linux rolled out some features before apple, would people call apple on it?

enough of the pointing of the finger.. theres 2 (or 3) major operating systems. you pick one, and you deal with it. if you dont like it, then switch. its as simple as that.

#322818

The explorer is not 1:1, I said it could be tweaked/skinned to be 1:1

I'll make a restore point before I install Flyakite OS X.

If it doesn't work, should I report it as a bug to M$?

~Wuzzie

#322820

how are the explorer windows 1:1 copies of the finder? 1:1 means exactly.. first off, they look nothing like the finder in tiger.. the functionality is not exact.

im so sick of the mac cult and the aqua emulation communities saying that microsoft is copying apple.. at best, microsoft is just adding features to keep up with today's standards..if apple happened to roll out the features first, because apple is update happy, then so be it.. but it doesnt mean that microsoft is copying mac.. i mean, if a distrubution of linux rolled out some features before apple, would people call apple on it?

enough of the pointing of the finger.. theres 2 (or 3) major operating systems. you pick one, and you deal with it. if you dont like it, then switch. its as simple as that.

I TOTALLY agree with you on that statement right there.

#322830

I'm going by the looks, because I haven't messed around with too much with the functionality of each.

I argee with you but I still beleive that Microsoft does use some ideas from Apple.

#322833

Does'nt Vista contain a spotlight clone?

There is a very good spotlight clone in Vista with MSN deasktop search.

#322836

yes .. every single desktop search agent is a spotlight clone

#322844

IMO, I'll be surprised if this mac emulation community isn't happy that Vista is becoming more similar to OSX. The more similar Vista is to OSX the easier it would be to emulate it. For example, people have always complained about the sluggishness or lack of functionality of finder clones, so Microsoft makes Explorer similar to Finder...that's a good thing - native Finder-like funcationality right there, something people have always dreamed of. As for who's cloning/copying who the whole point of evolution is to build upon ideas which are good, and not to reinvent the wheel again. For me personally, the closer Vista is to OSX the better. I need Windows for compatability yet love certain features/implementations of OSX.

#322847

5112 has glass.

It still has a fair amount of features over XP and yes, the explorer windows are 1:1.1 copies of the Finder.

There is no arguing with that.

I'm not sure if this is what was meant but I see "1:1.1" meaning that they have copied but still have a ways to go.

I think that even if they are copying OSX that is still a good thing- it at least shows that there is progress of sorts away from the grey windows of Classic.

#322850

I'm having an argument with my friend... does the Start Menu have a "smoke" effect when you click on it? Also, does it have "164 bit" graphics?

How much of an improvement is it? Is it worth waiting for?

#323020

164 bit? It that even a possible ammount?

The possible ones would be 64, 96, 128, 192 (I think)

Build 5112 does NOT have glass - either that or my Graphics card doesn't support it - but it usually supports transparency, so I think build 5112 must not have glass.

There is no smoke effect when you click start.

JesterMania, Thats a good point. I'm just kinda annoyed that M$ copied it so much, but I guess it would be usefull.

As for thier copy of spotlight, it sucks. You cant search the entire computer.

I have loads of Linkin Park music on my computer. I search Linkin Park and it gets no results.

I have to waste time finding it

As for now it's pretty pathetic, and they ded to work on the IE toolbars A LOT.

~Wuzzie

#323096

You need special drivers, what kind of card do you have? ATI/Nvidia, they both have drivers for it, are they installed?

#323104

Yeah it'd be nice if they got a spotlight-like feature which can search the computer. It was a shame that they couldn't get WinFS operational, as that would have made finding/tracking files a lot easier. Furthermore, if their "spotlight clone" could turn out to be something like Beagle for GNOME ( http://beaglewiki.org/Image:Best-shot-thumb.png ) that'd be awesome!

#323108

The "spot light clone" can be easily downloaded from here.

I use it over Google Desktop Seach because it has a built in search window that allows you to see all of your files and stuff like that, unlike Google's Desktop Search which makes you open a browser window and use Google to look at more files.

The WDS is more of an explorer interface where you can change what to sort them by and stuff like that.

As for this comment

Does'nt Vista contain a spotlight clone?

There is a very good spotlight clone in Vista with MSN deasktop search.

I'm not sure if I remember but, wait! I do! There where tons of different desktop search applications before Spotlight. One of them was Google Desktop Search, and there are even tons more before that too.

If anything Spotlight is a ripoff of all of them with the exception of the search while you type feature and the little drop down thing.

As for thier copy of spotlight, it sucks. You cant search the entire computer.

I have loads of Linkin Park music on my computer. I search Linkin Park and it gets no results.

I have to waste time finding it

For some stupid reason Microsoft didn't allow users to index any other drive/partition besides the Vista Installation drive/partition.

All you have to do for that is rightclick My Computer>Manage>Disk Managment

Then you right click on the the partition/disk that doesn't have Vista on it and click "Change Drive Letters and Paths..." in the context menu.

In the new Window click the Add button.

The new window should have a browse button with an input box by it, so add it anywhere on your Vista drive/partition and Windows Desktop Search should index it.

I especally like how you can search and then save the searches as Virtual Folders which allow you to have the indexer add a file to the saved search if it matches what you searched for. Windows Vista also has meta tag editing in the bottom pane of the explorer window and that works increddiablly great when searching.

#323476

5112 does have the "glass" effect.

You probably do not have a supported video card.

It runs just fine on my Radeon 9550.

As for people calling the desktop search feature a "spotlight clone", as Kenta stated, spotlight is just another version of desktop search agents that have been around for years.

And looks aside, Vista has so much more going on under the hood. I hate it when people call it a dressed up XP or something to that effect.

It's almost an entirely new OS. Part of the reason it's taken so long.

Very little of XP or previous versions of Windows source code is even present in Vista.

I'll save my final judgment on Vista when it becomes a released product.

Until then, all bets are off.

#323487

Yeh, the OS is practicly BRAND new, everything under the hood is redone, remade KERNAL...etc. The glass effect is just a big bonus.

#323582

I really don't want to drag this thread out of topic, but switching to another OS isn't as simple as you would have us all believe Mr. shockme17.

Obviously most of us here at Aqua-Soft cannot simply get a new computer to support another OS, thus we compensate for the things we don't have with what we do. Windows.

Also saying that Microsoft is copying OS X with it's search bar, places bar, or commands isn't out of anger. It's out of the urge to point out obvious irony among a place of friends who share the same love for OS appearance....There's no reason to insult or get angry.

And in my opinion, Vista will be a great OS because it will be far more stable than it's predecessor. It will sport a more thought out structure. Mind the fact that they're trying to really hit the base with this one.

#323612

64, 128, 164, 192 bit graphics? Muh?

1 bit graphics = 2 colors. 2^1 = 2. 0 and 1.

2 bit graphics = 4 colors. 2^2 = 4. 00, 01, 10, 11.

...

8 bit graphics = 256 colors. 2^8 = 256.

16 bit graphics = 65,536 colors. 2^16 = 65536

32 bit graphics = 24 bit graphics (2^24 - 16,777,216 colors) + 8 bit alpha channel (transparency) support.

As it is, "true" color (24 bit graphics, or 32, which is 24 bit, just with added transparency support), supports a range of color approaching that which the human eye can perceive. 192 bit graphics... that would be an amazing 6.277 * 10^57 colors. Honestly, this is all the extent of my scientific and mathematic skills, but > 32 bit graphics should strike you as pretty odd.

For wala's friend, I can't even think what else he/she could be confusing graphic depth level with that would be 164. It wouldn't be related to CPU processing, because we're only at the beginning of the 64 bit era for mainstream consumers. It wouldn't have anything to do with RAM because people can have into the gigabytes of RAM. And doesn't XP require 128 megs of RAM to install? Meaning the Vista will probably require a fair bit more than that.

So, in conclusion, I have no idea what 164 bit, bytes or nibbles has to do with any aspect of Vista. So wala, you can rest assured that your friend is wrong.

#323674