Windows Vienna

What are your thoughts on this? I'm pretty sure it'll be out by 2009-2008ish Microsoft likes to bump dates around so the exact date isn't written in stone yet (don't believe the date on Wikipedia), but can't wait for the beta version to be release, so look out for David's request for Windows Vienna beta version when it's available I'll probably compensate an amount of +rep. I find this amusing how Microsoft said as soon as they finished Vista they got to working on Vienna. Makes it look like they didn't put much effort in Vista and it still needs some tweaking etc.

I really dislike windows nowdays - while I'm still a solid XP user give me the chance and I'll gladly switch to Macs or linux. Only reason I'm still on XP is software and that can be solved with dual booting :D

Vista was a real failure. I'll wait for Vienna, if that sucks then I'm taking the plunge :D

By the way, David, I love that animation in your signature. I saw it couple years ago been trying to find it since. *TAXED*

Windows Vienna should not be used in the case of describing Windows 7. The project name changes so much, that people get confused.

Also, changing to Linux should not be considered by the un-savvy user, as it is has a steep learning curve and requires a high ammount of mantainence. Naturally once set up, it's more stable than anything, but getting there takes some effort. I had to write several scripts just to get the bastard going as a webserver.

All I have to say about running in a Mac environment is no. I worked with Macs for 2 years (yes, I did use XP, it just so happened that I had to work with them as well) and overall they are fairly slack. Sure, one click fixes everything, but it means that you can't do much else past that one click. People who hated XP for its ammount of user input, should change to Mac quickly. And never talk to me, or I'll remind them of their refusal to attempt to run a OS that requires a brain.

I'm really looking foward to the things that will be implemented (or should be) in 7. There is a long list at a press release, but in simple terms, user works in a sandbox. That's like a safe haven. Outside that is everything else. Let's call it the badlands. You can run programs in either space, and still have everything protected inside your sandbox.

But knowing press releases, it's gonna be nothing like that.

Vista hasn't been a total falure, and you can not claim it to be unless you have worked with Vista extensivly. There are many defineing features, and apart from its bloated interface and memory heavy kernel+explorer, it runs smoothly. Then again, I'm running a high end system, so I can't say it's horrifc on performance.

I'll PM you when I hear about it at work, David. Cuz my boss always keeps up with the tech crew at Windows. :3

I just feel as if computers are not getting much faster because even though the hardware is faster, the operating systems are also getting bigger.

This is sooo true. When you need 1gb ram to get the same performance as 512mb ram on XP and 256mb in win98se, you know something's not right.

Vienna? :shock:
Vista still have a bunch of bugs and they plan to make another OS?
they should focusing on fixing vista's bugs.

Lucky I've coded C++ on linux for ages :)


Its called Ubuntu (aka noob Linux :D)


I can heartily agree on you with that one, though sometimes simplicity is good when trying to get some work done. Also I like that damn Garageband, FL Studio never measured up for me :lol:
Not to mention iCal vs Outlook, Outlook seems to be going backwards to me.
But yes, I must admit that XP is great for everything else if you don't mind a whole lot of user input (aka not being a lazy bastard like me).

I'm a Fedora 7 user, myself. More personal preference and familarality than anything else. Red Hat based.

Agreed. Most of my friends own a full tower or even a tank just to run certain programs it's pretty crazy on how big the operating systems are now a day.



My animation is DeadKarl and it's awesome the people who made the .gif must've had to put so much time into it :P

Let's see what it can do first, though it may very well be yet another microsoft masterpiece (bugridden,expensive, flawed at the very core,etc.).

I have to agree that said .gif is amazing, it's rather similar to the infamous "boss attack" animation and I absolutely love it.

one thing i am not clear here wat does this Vista lack in ?? (because of da rumors i never tried it before)

Yeah, I've tried Fedora. It's a bit difficult to get up and running, but other than that its a great Linux. Definitely recommend Ubuntu though, gone to it once and I'm not going to touch another distro again. Then again, I prefer XP 80% of the time :lol:

What not would be a better question I think...
Just to name a few defects:
-security issues
-incompatibility issues(software/hardware)
-slowness
-crashes
-etc.

A friend of mine had to get her computer repaired after trying Vista.

I object.

Have you used Vista? This is the question I pose to everyone. You can't boycott an OS if you haven't used it. Security issues, name one. There aren't any that you don't get in XP through exploits made by viruses. There are in XP, and they were patched. Same with Vista, and they have been patched also.

Incompatablitly with hardware occurs when you are attempting to use hardware that is too old for Vista. Hell, my current machine (Vista 32Bit) had hardware incompatabilitys running in XP, and couldn't function within XP OS.

Slowness: Well, yeah, if you are running a shit computer, then don't try Vista. I would have thought that obvious. Incredibly obvious. It's as fast as a bullet on my computer.

Crashes: Only crash I ever had under Vista was when I tweaked the graphics cards clock too high.

So, please, list defects. I'll confirm their validity. Don't post about things that you haven't used.

However, that your friend had to have her computer repaired after using Vista is odd. Most of the time, Vista crashes due to users tinkering with the system too much. It's been made for new users to not be able to do what they used to be able to in XP (IE: Fuck too much with system files)

The problem with Vista is the fact that you need a top notch machine to use it. Some people can arguably say the whole point of an operating system is usability and affordability. Now looking good is important too, but there are some major design faults in Vista.

1) Changing lots of the interfaces.
With lots of interface changes, the standard interface everyone is used to was changed, which created the major problems for technology retards (okay, that's an unfair term, we may think its easy, but some people honestly can't help having trouble using systems they aren't used to). New features are great, but the things that already were there should be left as is. I admit to not using Vista so obviously this argument is nullified if you have the option to configure interfaces to look a bit more classic.
2) Overuse of graphics
Yes, 3D graphics on interfaces look great. But they also take a hell of a while to load on machines with bad graphic cards - and some people really don't want to spend much on a card when they won't be playing games.

Also, features I think that should already have been properly implemented in modern operating systems which weren't:
1) EASY Tags.
Yes, I know Vista can tag. But its basically the same as just using keywords in XP, though a bit easier to use the tags to find files. Tagging should be as easy as doing something like Alt-Clicking and typing, not going all the way to properties and searching through the multitude of boxes for the one marked with Tags.

Well I have more, but I must get going as its currently 1am :O
Yes, these weren't the best arguments. But still, that's what I have to say for now.

What is the point upgrading to vista? I think XP works fine. All of my programs work in XP and Microsoft has really made it a decent operating system. It might take vista awhile before they patch it to be completely compatible. I just don't see the need for anyone to move to vista if XP works. Besides, it just causes more lag on your machine.