The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Obligatory Windows Vista thread...
Old 23rd July 2005
  #1
Obligatory Windows Vista thread...

Okay, fellow rabid Windows partisans.

The formal announcement has been made, magically transforming "Longhorn" (the in-dev version of the 'next' Windows) into "Vista" (the destined-to-be-shelf-ready-someday release version due in the 'holiday buying season' of 2006).


I know you're all aglow and atwitter with excitement.

Announced features are that they intend to make it easier to add a computer to an existing network (what'll they think of next?!?), enhanced desktop search functions (maybe they could bring back the speed and efficiency of W98's much faster search engine?) and -- oo la la -- a new 'scalable' graphics engine that, ohmygod, will allow document icons to be tiny graphic representations of the actual documents.

Recommended memory requirements will go from 128 MB to 512 MB. Ahem. (Yes, now we know why OS X with its Quartz graphics engine is so RAM hungry; not that we were actually wondering.)


I'll admit it, I was none too excited by the prospect of switching to XP, either, but it was almost entirely a win-win situation for me, so I am officially keeping an open, hopeful mind.


But part of me, as always (and I go back to DOS 2.11) is holding back and saying to the rest of me, fat chance, I'm sticking with XP which works for everything I need and works very well, at that.

As groovy as a rescalable graphics engine sounds on the gee-whiz side of things, I've used OS X and the 'advantages' of its Quartz graphics engine seem to pretty much revolve around unusably tiny representations of documents (oddly parallel -- yet peculiarly prescient -- to the MS 'innovation' cited above) and the 'white tornado' animated swoop of minimized windows down onto the task bar... er, I mean "Dock."

For the hit you take on OS X performance and system requirements, it's just not at all worth it, to me. (There are other issues, too, besides the graphics engine, that drag OS X performance down, such as the microkernal architecture of the Mach kernel trapped inside the 'old-fashioned' monolithic structure of the arguably inefficent, open-source Darwin layer, which produces very nasty bottlenecks indeed, in uses [such as networking] where multiple processes are forced to queue up for serial access to the inefficiently encapsulated Mach kernel).


If all you get are graphical me-too-isms for that 4-fold increase in resource usage -- I'm thinking this might really be the "upgrade" I skip... at least for the foreseeable future...
Old 24th July 2005
  #2
Lives for gear
 
orange's Avatar
 

I can't see any new features that interest me - but it is 64 bit so might actually work quicker with newer hardware/software.

It's not due out until the end of next year so we have a long time to decide if we want to upgrade or not.

si
Old 24th July 2005
  #3
Gear Maniac
 
cultureofgreed's Avatar
 

Like always, I will wait the obligatory 2 years before upgrading. Why spend the extra money on all those asprin when there is no need.
Old 24th July 2005
  #4
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cultureofgreed
Like always, I will wait the obligatory 2 years before upgrading. Why spend the extra money on all those asprin when there is no need.
lol....64 bit aspect does intrigue me since I do have a athlon 64
Old 24th July 2005
  #5
Yah... I know I'll end up there eventually.

Maybe once I see it, it'll fire me up. But like I said, I've spent some time with OS X and their rescalable graphic engine and it's pretty much a yawn.

But, you know, when you get out to the big pool of developers is when the innovation and cross-polination really kicks in. That's no slag on people who develop for the Macintosh. They're often really top flight. But then tend to be highly focused on specific tasks and, perhaps because they're working in an environment where the focus is very much on proprietary development and IP ownership, I think sometimes they tend to be less open to outside ideas or at least less able to take advantage of or incorporate them.


OTOH, I think MS always shows its worst side when its trying to emulate Apple. Much of what has been discarded along the way in the evolution of the everyday Windows working environment of most users has derived from either a fawning me-tooism or some sort of misguided attempt to "out-Apple" Apple.

OTOH, the good that MS has done has revolved around their own strengths -- and those are at the system level. Innovations like the multichannel audio, MIDI, and plug in layers that began in Windows 95 were only emulated by Apple beginning with OS.X 10.2.

I think it's safe to say that it's in terms of UI that MS's apparent 'character disorders' come into play in the most painfully obvious manner.

Thank goodness the core of contemporary Windows was switched to an X-windows like basic window and hierarchy tree oriented interface back in '95.

Where things get funky, though, are MS's attempts to put UI faces on system access particulars.

The infamous MS mystery-tab interface 'standard' is a nightmare that we needed to wake up from in the 90s. It violates just about every significant rule of UI design. Most of MS's tabbed dialog interfaces have minimal logic involved in their layout. Tabs appear and disappear with little logical consistency. Mysterious buttons pop up in the strangest places. Then when you look for them again some time later, it takes you twenty minutes of clicking randomly on tabs trying to pop up the right page that has the missing magic button that will open yet another idiotally tabbed dialog, which will eventually open another.

Now, let's make this clear. MS is a company that first and foremost sees itself as serving business. Businesses like consistency and logic. They like hierarchies, because they're easy to understand and navigate, and they don't rely on the memory of the user for quick navigation.

An example of a hierarchy is the basic file and folder system of a system drive. There's a root folder and it containes other files and folders, which themselves contain other files and folders. If they're laid out and labeled intelligently, navigating such a hierarchical system is an easily intuitable task that doesn't rely much on specific knowledge or memory.

Good enough.

But MS had a bright idea.

What if there were such things as "magic folders"? Folders that could appear in multiple places or mask the hierarchy where that might theoretically be important to keep naive users out of the gus of their own computers -- or into the documents of other users.

Mind you, hidden folders (directories) and files had been in use since the early days of DOS. But a folder that could appear in multiple places was a relatively new concept.

An example of such a folder is the My Documents folder.

MS introduced the My Documents folder a long, long time ago and told developers that it should be considered the default folder for documents that would allow each logged in user to keep 'his' documents in a universally addressable folder. Unfortunately, because of the nature of its 'magic folder' status and the nature of the developer community, most folks ignored My Documents and insisted that the user documents and data for their programs should go in folders embedded in the application's own system folder, buried in the Program Files folder...

The sticky stuff hit the fan with XP, for the most part, and a lot of developers who'd been ignoring MS's design precepts finally had to acknowledge that there was, if not a better way, a MS way and they'd better get with the program or their apps would be a thorough annoyance to use. (And, yes, I still have a couple apps that insist on putting their data in their Program Files folder.) But, anyhow, look how damn long it took to turn that culture around.


I dunno... I seem to be rambling now, but I thought I had a point when I started.

That's what developing in Windows does to yuh...
Old 24th July 2005
  #6
Lives for gear
 
drockfresh's Avatar
It is the most totally uncool product name I have ever heard. Is it a highway picnic stop or an operating system? I looked up the definition of Vista on dictionary.com: A distant view or prospect, especially one seen through an opening, as between rows of buildings or trees. Totally lame.

I would have called it ......WINDOWS MEGATRON 3000
Old 25th July 2005
  #7
I read a name lab guy who just couldn't say enough good about the name choice. I think part of the concept is, indeed, to pick a common word that is so bland MS will be able to stamp their identity on it. A la "Windows."

I thought XP was an odd choice, back when, too. It sounded too retro, more suited to a budget line at the end of the 80's than a flagship at the start of a new millenium.

But, you know, it didn't seem to take too long before the personality of the OS overwrote my 80s associations with its name.


So, I doubt we'll be sitting around in a few years saying, What a dumb name for an OS. I just hope we're not saying, What a dumb operating system.

___________________________


Not to harp on the load size issue...

... but what about that recommended min. requirement, huh? I thought resource requirements were only supposed to double with major OS overhauls. This is quadrupling.

Granted, 128 min RAM was always a bit too optimistic for XP -- but you could get away with it in a pinch. Now they're setting the minimum RAM reco at 512. Have they turned conservative in their recommendation (that would be a good thing!) or is this another absolute minimum requirement to limp along number like 128? In which case, damn, this sucka's gonna be a wide load...


It's always a little more comforting to get a new machine when your OS requirements go up... but I switched to XP on a machine I'd built about a year before and in some ways it actually seemed to perform better on that machine than W98 (still a sentimental fave around here... never thought I'd say that about a MS product; still, I've ended up even more fond of XP. It's just been such a solid OS for me on a couple machines, one of them that now ancient P3-500 mHz).


But if their minimum reco is going up fourfold -- it's clear you won't be switching to Vista on an old clunker and having your head thrown back from the speed of your program execution. My god, it's dazzling. That's what you won't be saying...
Old 25th July 2005
  #8
Lives for gear
 
drockfresh's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1
So, I doubt we'll be sitting around in a few years saying, What a dumb name for an OS. I just hope we're not saying, What a dumb operating system.
Good Point.
Old 25th July 2005
  #9
I think, overall, MS has had progress with its OS's... but there've been a few releases that really made one wonder. Windows 3.0 should never have been shrinkwrapped. (I'll leave the woeful W3.x GUI for its own thread somewhere.) Windows ME was a problem disguised as a solution in search of a problem.


Like I said, my concerns are that MS should eschew fancy GUI gewgaws and just give us a solid, efficient, extensible OS and host environment for our applications, providing those apps with a solid but full range of basic tools that interop gracefully.

Like a lot of longtime users, I know how to make Windows the environment I want for running my apps. I don't want to be saddled with what some Mac-worshipping human interface guru hired into Redmond thinks I want.

Some people want to be spoon fed everything, and maybe have it prechewed, too.


The reason my decision path moved toward open standards way back when was because I wanted to control my computing experience.

Have you ever 'shopped for skins' for Windows or a media player or other skinnable entity? It's amazing the weirdass stuff people end up liking. And that's cool -- as long as no one tries to force their chocies on me.

And there is always a fair amount of that implicit in a major OS and GUI overhaul...
Old 25th July 2005
  #10
Lives for gear
 
max cooper's Avatar
 

AFAIK, XP refers to the Jimi Hendrix Experience. Makes sense when you think about the source, huh?
Old 25th July 2005
  #11
Lives for gear
 
s.d.finley's Avatar
Like I said, my concerns are that MS should eschew fancy GUI gewgaws and just give us a solid, efficient, extensible OS and host environment for our applications, providing those apps with a solid but full range of basic tools that interop gracefully.

I have been waiting for this since 3.11.....and continue....


rock

sdf
Old 25th July 2005
  #12
Lives for gear
 
bunnerabb's Avatar
XP is pretty dandy, sure, but I'm still ruinning 2000 Pro for audio.

Same NTFS, same kernel, less hoohootery.

I don't want to have to retructure the services in my O/S to get it perform for speed.

2000 is quite good, actually, and almost anything that runs on XP runs fine on it. Especially audio.
Old 26th July 2005
  #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.d.finley
Like I said, my concerns are that MS should eschew fancy GUI gewgaws and just give us a solid, efficient, extensible OS and host environment for our applications, providing those apps with a solid but full range of basic tools that interop gracefully.

I have been waiting for this since 3.11.....and continue....


rock

sdf
Yeah... it was called DR-DOS 6...

heh



[From Digital Research, headed by the guy who gave the world CPM. He was able to amortize his time and energy investment in developing CPM by creating a clone of DOS, which was itself a clone of CPM. I do believe he was quoted at one point as saying "What goes around, comes around." Someone asked if he was pissed off at Bill Gates and he said, nah. Maybe he didn't have billions but he had a personal fortune of something like 25 million at the time and wasn't crying too hard, he said. Some people would be, though, you know? I'm sure Bill Gates would have been, had the shoes been on the other feet. I think, for Gates, it's as much about competition as anything. Certainly, for the real industry leaders, it's seldom about money, in itself.]
Old 26th July 2005
  #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunnerabb
XP is pretty dandy, sure, but I'm still ruinning 2000 Pro for audio.

Same NTFS, same kernel, less hoohootery.

I don't want to have to retructure the services in my O/S to get it perform for speed.

2000 is quite good, actually, and almost anything that runs on XP runs fine on it. Especially audio.
The core architecture is pretty much the same. There's support for more consumer gewgaws in XP.

W2K always looked like a class act, to me. I was glad when the consumer Windows finally adopted the more robust "pro" core code (and, reciprocally, that gave the pro version of XP access to all the gewgaw support, when needed.)


With regard to getting XP down to fighting trim, it's a few quick clicks in the Services Manager or whatever it's called.

A far bigger PITA is stripping all the crapware out of vendor-purchased machines. I hadn't bought a 'consumer' machine since an early laptop in the late 80s (a rockin' 4.77 mHz Toshiba with no HD and 512 K of RAM which I upgraded ot 640... every K helped) until I bought my Dell Pentium M notebook. I love it -- but I was stripping garbageware out of it for HOURS after I booted it up the first time. It was obscene.

These days its boot profile takes about 111 MB. And most of my favorite apps are pretty good about leaving things more or less the way they found them. Sonar, for instance, usually seems to 'lose' no more than 10 MB of RAM. OTOH, other apps, like the current MusicMatch Jukebox seem to just thrash the place. Even if I go and hand remove all the processes it tries to leave running, the RAM leakage/loss is as much as 70 MB or more! Load it and run it again, and the leakage is compounded -- with or without stripping the left behind services. It's actually more stable if you strip the services it tries leave running after you load it. (And -- of course, when you install it it automatically inserts two or three services into your boot profile. It loads faster if you strip them out of the boot profile and just let the app load them when needed. (I have to use it for their On Demand service, which I really, really like, but damn, since version 2 or 3 when I came onboard -- it's at 10, now -- that prg has just gotten more and more bloated and is increasingly unstable [although the current version is pretty solid, again]. Lots of good features, and invaluable for loading mp3s and wmas into my Mp3 keychain... which only performs well when every artist is in his own folder, which MM automatically does. I'm stuck with the damn thing. For now. I just reboot before I do any serious audio work. No biggie. I come from the old days when you used to reboot if your nose itched.)
Old 26th July 2005
  #15
Gear Maniac
 
cultureofgreed's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher
lol....64 bit aspect does intrigue me since I do have a athlon 64

I ran the 64bit version of XP Pro when the beta was still up. I got it to install, but the driver situation makes it all but unusable. I couldn't even get the Nvidia driver for a Gforce 2 to work, which one would think would be pretty common. My printer, NIC, built in audio, and even strange things like the 64 bit VIA 4 in 1 wouldn't work right.
WinXP 64 just crashed over and over like a $5 hooker after a bachelor party.

My experiment lasted a whole 2 hours before I gave up and reistalled WinXP Pro. Maybe the real edition will be better, but I think driver support is going to be sparse for any devices that are over a year or two old, or from non-mainstream vendors. Of course, your milage may vary.
Old 26th July 2005
  #16
Those kind of experiences are common for MS betas, particularly the early ones. As I recall there were similar complaints about XP betas.

But we like to think that MS remembers the pain of driver issues past.

Even though Win 2K was targetted to professional business use, there were wails of protest because a number of consumer devices never had drivers for it. And MS became painfully aware that many business users really did need to hook up phones, PDAs, and various electronic peripherals... imagine.


Now that the two products are built on the same code base, this isn't the issue it was when NT and 2K had to have separate driver development.

Several years ago I read that the average cost of development for a peripheral driver runs about $100,000 per device. This is generally covered by the device maker. Because of that, many manufacturers were leery of spending that kind of money developing for the relatively small NT market.


With a major overhaul release, we can assume, or at least hope, that MS will be pouring enormous effort and money into assuring that its acceptance will go smoothly. They certainly must remember the black eye they received with Windows ME from both the computer press and consumers for its various, mostly minor problems, many of them related to dirvers. Let's hope they haven't forgetten that important lesson.
Old 26th July 2005
  #17
Gear Maniac
 
cultureofgreed's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1
Several years ago I read that the average cost of development for a peripheral driver runs about $100,000 per device.

This makes me wonder how those crafty Linux users do it!
Old 27th July 2005
  #18
Lives for gear
 
cdog's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1
Okay, fellow rabid Windows partisans....

If all you get are graphical me-too-isms for that 4-fold increase in resource usage -- I'm thinking this might really be the "upgrade" I skip... at least for the foreseeable future...
Exactly, if the OS is being upgraded, should it not be made more efficient and use less system resources, rather than being loaded down with a bunch of flashy crap?

512 just for the OS to run? WTF?

Definitely approaching with trepidation.
Old 27th July 2005
  #19
Lives for gear
 
bigbaby987's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1
I think, overall, MS has had progress with its OS's... but there've been a few releases that really made one wonder. Windows 3.0 should never have been shrinkwrapped. (I'll leave the woeful W3.x GUI for its own thread somewhere.) Windows ME was a problem disguised as a solution in search of a problem.


Like I said, my concerns are that MS should eschew fancy GUI gewgaws and just give us a solid, efficient, extensible OS and host environment for our applications, providing those apps with a solid but full range of basic tools that interop gracefully.

Like a lot of longtime users, I know how to make Windows the environment I want for running my apps. I don't want to be saddled with what some Mac-worshipping human interface guru hired into Redmond thinks I want.

Some people want to be spoon fed everything, and maybe have it prechewed, too.


The reason my decision path moved toward open standards way back when was because I wanted to control my computing experience.

Have you ever 'shopped for skins' for Windows or a media player or other skinnable entity? It's amazing the weirdass stuff people end up liking. And that's cool -- as long as no one tries to force their chocies on me.

And there is always a fair amount of that implicit in a major OS and GUI overhaul...
no disrespect, but are you a comp tech or someone who uses it to get some work done...
Old 27th July 2005
  #20
Lives for gear
 

I found some screenshots from the beta,,



http://www.activewin.com/articles/2005/betavis.shtml


(looks a bit like os x i think)
Old 27th July 2005
  #21
Lives for gear
 
bunnerabb's Avatar
Looks more and more RedHatty with each "release".

As far as MusicMatch.. I refuse to let that, Real Player or any of that trash NEAR my PC.

Even my net.rig.. let alone my DAW.

Bloated trash, at best, IMO.
Old 28th July 2005
  #22
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrik
I found some screenshots from the beta,,



http://www.activewin.com/articles/2005/betavis.shtml


(looks a bit like os x i think)
wonder if they will still offer the classic skin?
Old 28th July 2005
  #23
Gear Addict
 

Wow, transparency AND blurring... what a cool improvement...

I used to wondow why they ever call it "Windows", but now maybe there is chance to redeem itself. I would really like to see a frosted glazed window, perhaps with some coloured spot light grazing it's surface... oh wait, maybe they'd have to incorperate sub-surface scattering first, and refractive/reflective properties, and CAUSTICS!!!!!! It'll come, someday... meanwhile I'm still on windows 2000 and win98se, fine for me right now...
Old 28th July 2005
  #24
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbaby987
no disrespect, but are you a comp tech or someone who uses it to get some work done...
I'm more an end-user. I'm a complete end-user in the audio sphere. (Though I've been doing computer based recording since '96 and had a 16 ch ADAT rig synched to computer MIDI for a number of years before that.)


But my day job is writing database and web applications. That keeps me well 'above' the system-level fray. As you probably know, in computer dev, low-level work is the most fundamental, and therefore important. Low level languages like assembler and mid-low level languages like C are what "real programmers" use. Guys like me tend to use 'higher level' (less abstract, more feature-rich) developing languages like VB, C#, etc, as well as various web/server oriented scripting platforms like PHP, ASP, etc.

I'm definitely just an interested "end user" when it comes to OS level issues.

Think of me as a somewhat informed consumer.
Old 28th July 2005
  #25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrik
I found some screenshots from the beta,,



http://www.activewin.com/articles/2005/betavis.shtml


(looks a bit like os x i think)
Well, the skin has the slate look. But functionally/structurally (from what little the screen shots show) it still looks pretty much like the same ol' Windows.

The directory view apparently is trying to show the "database underpinnings" of the new file system (which may not be in the initial release, now, isn't that right?) At first blush there was something OS X-ish about it, but I don't see that it does OS X's trademark descending colum view -- a 'feature' of OS X, I've always found offputting and initially confusing, anyhow. Give me a good ol' fashioned tree view, anyday.

(I was just using OS X last night to do some work with a client who does all his graphics on a G5. It cracks me up that I get on clients' OS X machines and then have to show them how to do things. It's not because I know how to do it, but rather because I assume there must be a way to do it and I keep at it until I find it. Whereas they just seem to assume it can't be done or if it can, it's too hard. Sigh. Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of Windows users are the same way.)


Anyhow, I was a big (outsider) fan of OS X. Since I've become a bit more involved with using it as well as doing more research into its actual strengths and weakness, my admiration has dimmed a bit.

Amusingly, one of the things I first noticed was how Windows-like OS X seemed to me. Move a few buttons around, change a couple of functionalities a bit (and give it a 'nice, clean' look -- the very first thing most folks seem to have done when they got XP was turn off that horrid blue-and-tan XP skin and swtich to the classic skin, which is a far easier on the eyes, seems to me. I, myself, now use a skin [it only adds about 2 MB max to my usage and I find this particular skin enhances my usability by making things much clearer on my laptop])...

Anyhow, a lot of features new to OS X like The Dock clearly derived from the Windows 95/98/+ paradigm. And then other features, like the aforementioned directory view in The Finder seemed designed not to look like Windows as a prime consideration.

(I find the directory view in The Finder to be cluttered and, to my aging eyes, confusing. I'm sure it has its fans, though. It does offer the ability to see other nodes on different levels of the file hierarchy simultaneously. I prefer the tree concept in windows better, though, since I can hide those parallel nodes when I don't need them or open them when I want them, say to move files from one folder to another without opening another folder window. Reasonable folks may vary on that, for sure.)

Anyhow, I got OS X on the brain, today, since I spent hours last night on my client's machine and it's always frustrating to have your expertise seemingly evaporate in front of your client's eyes... (And that ain't Steve Jobs fault... :D ) Still, I ended up with a net plus on that front because, among other things, I was able to figure out and show him and his graphic artist how to batch process files in Photoshop (his graphic artist had calle his Mac guru who told him it was "too hard" and "not to bother." )

(The problem was just Adobe's idiotic nomenclature. Once I figured out how they'd garbled their process names, it all seemed relatively straightforward. AWFUL help docs, though. Just gosh awful. There's a messed up company. And now that they've bought Macromedia, they're poised to completely ruin half of my professional life.)


Anyhow... is there any coffee in here?
Old 28th July 2005
  #26
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunnerabb
Looks more and more RedHatty with each "release".

As far as MusicMatch.. I refuse to let that, Real Player or any of that trash NEAR my PC.

Even my net.rig.. let alone my DAW.

Bloated trash, at best, IMO.
I hear ya.

It's just that for $5 a month I'm able to listen to an enormous amount of music, new and old, without having to mess around with my 500 plus CD collection or my 80 GB of (almost all) legit MP3 collection. (I do also have a number of "VCR doctrine" analog captured tracks. Technically, they're legal for my use. Basically, they're for use in my SanDisk mem-player... and, you know, in case western civilization collapses and I'm no longer able to get 95% of my music listening for $5 a month. heh )

Like I said, using one machine most of the time (my once-proud tower sits powered down 99% of the time), I've had to make certain adjustments. But when I boot up, I have a moderately trim load size (112 MB), particularly considering it's a laptop and has more than a couple extra processes to accomodate various specific functionalities. I really had my old desktop tweaked down -- important, since it's a P3-500 mHz.


If I was taking clients, I would absolutely have a separate DAW machine. But with a a little care, I find that I can use this one machine for everything from DAW work to web and database design, to dragging around to clients... to sitting around at the coffee house browsing the web... all with good OS stability and relative speed and power.

I'm basically a happy camper. And, though I'm a long way from giving it a name, I have to admit something I never thought I'd say in public about a machine someone else made, I'm really, really fond of my laptop. It's just a little trooper. (I only fear that it's set the bar too high and my next laptop down the road will find it very hard to impress me. I'm crossing my fingers, though.)
Old 28th July 2005
  #27
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphajerk
wonder if they will still offer the classic skin?

As I said someplace in my torrent of near-meaningless verbiage above, I was a partisan of the Windows Classic skin. It's clean, it's easy on the eyes. It doesn't look like a Romper Room My First Computer. (The XP Silver skin isn't too bad -- but, ultimately, the curvy, concave window top of the window frame just bugget the carps out of me. Too Capt Nemo for my tastes.)

But, anyhow, early on with this machine (back when I was in the playful, experimental mode and would have been able to start over easily in an emergency) I installed the WindowBlinds skin manager. I used it for a while to put various OS 9 and OS X type skins on Windows (my Mac pals were by-and-large not impressed heh ), then took it out of my boot profile for quite a while.

But after I tested it pretty thoroughly, I decided it was worth the relatively tiny hit on resources and I'm now using a skin called "SoftCrystal" -- which is W98-like in its simplicity, but has a subtle '3-D" look I find actually helps visually navigate crowded screens. And it's easy to see on the laptop under less than ideal lighting conditions.

About the only 'windows animation' feature I use is a mouse cursor shadow and menu shadows. The rest of that stuff seems counterproductive. I remember the first time I booted up XP (blue and tan and defaulted to all animations and gewgaws on)... I thought, yeesh, it's as ugly as anything I've ever seen and it's slow too.

Happily, under optimization tips I saw that I could turn it to Win Classic view and it was like getting an instant hardware upgrade (on that old P3-500), not to mention improving the looks a 1000%.
Old 28th July 2005
  #28
Lives for gear
 

Okey, I run os X myself on a old g4 model and from my perspective my first thought when I saw the screenshots was that windows had moved towards os X in looks.

I just wonder why, microsoft surely have the cash to make it look in a new and exciting way if they want, to me it´s like they just admit that os x really looks better.

Some of the animated graphic features in os X can actually be turned of if the user dont like them, but the main reason for me to run it is stability I´ve had this computer on for 4 month without one crash, surfing the net downloading/installing stuff and I dont even have any antivirus software installed.

I mean if windows vista can get rid of the virus and spyware problem that is increasing then cudos to them, but I seriously doubt it.
Old 28th July 2005
  #29
Lives for gear
 

In all fairnes I just thougt about that if one compare os9 to os x then os x have features that are more windowslike than os 9.

Especially the window navigation but the resembalence is more in functionality than in pure looks at least to me.
Old 28th July 2005
  #30
The 'slate' skin is very OS X-ish, to be sure. (They've been using it on some Windows development versions for a few years, now.)

I strongly doubt it will be the shipping skin, but you never know. If it is, they'll deserve all the derision they get.


Another incredibly dorky looking me-tooism -- that looks in those screen shots inferior to the OS X implementation -- is the graphical mini-representation of documents. At least on the Mac, you have a sort of chance of seeing enough detail to have it be somewhat useful. (I haven't, myself, found it to actually be useful, but that's another story.) But, as represented in the screen shots linked above, the Vista variant seems to hide the page representation in a dorky partially open folder graphic that obscures the content. If that's really how it is, it may be the stupidest MS/Windows feature since "Bob."

No doubt, as you mouse over the icons, the folder opens up to reveal the image. How stupid would that be?

Gee whiz.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump