Posted on 01/18/2007 3:16:25 PM PST by Swordmaker
XP Successor Doesn't Break New Ground on Ease of Use, But It's Best Windows Yet
A new version of Microsoft Windows, the world's most popular and important computer operating system, will finally arrive for consumers on Jan. 30. It has taken the giant software maker more than five years to replace Windows XP with this new version, called Windows Vista -- an eternity by computer-industry reckoning. Many of the boldest plans for Vista were discarded in that lengthy process, and what's left is a worthy, but largely unexciting, product.
Vista is much prettier than previous versions of Windows. Its icons look better, windows have translucent borders, and items in the taskbar and in folders can display little previews of what they contain. Security is supposedly vastly better; there are some new free, included programs; and fast, universal search is now built in. There are hundreds of other, smaller, improvements and additions throughout the system, including parental controls and even a slicker version of Solitaire.
After months of testing Vista on multiple computers, new and old, I believe it is the best version of Windows that Microsoft has produced. However, while navigation has been improved, Vista isn't a breakthrough in ease of use. Overall, it works pretty much the same way as Windows XP. Windows hasn't been given nearly as radical an overhaul as Microsoft just applied to its other big product, Office.
Vista's Flip 3D feature lets you scroll through images of currently running programs. The sidebar (right) contains miniapplications. The Windows Photo Gallery (left) is for organizing and editing photos.
Nearly all of the major, visible new features in Vista are already available in Apple's operating system, called Mac OS X, which came out in 2001 and received its last major upgrade in 2005. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Can you tell me when the new Apple OS will likely be unveiled?
I wish I knew. I'm in the market for one of the new Intel based PBs. Apple in credibly secretive.
You might get some guidance at thinksecret.com.
When I checked Apple in early December, the person there told me to wait to buy with a wink.
::: sigh :::
Besides my earier post to you. :)
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/index.html
thnx!
I like your assessment.
Thanks. Microsoft's market share is bound to eventually go down, there's little if any room to go up, let's just hope it's lost to a better product and not just a cheaper one.
Occasionally, when I ping the list, FR posts it twice. There may be some glitch in handling the list. It never happens when I post a normal reply... only when I ping the list. I asked the Mods to remove one of an accidental double PING to the Mac Users Ping list. Somehow they deleted both.
The Macrumors Buyer's Guide is a pretty good site at tracking the frequency of updates to Apple's hardware and trying to predict the probability of new releases.
That's only a small minority of older non-Universal Apps that haven't been updated from their PowerPC versions. In actual fact, most of them run quite nicely but WOULD run faster when they are released in Universal binaries. Most of the apps that are not yet Universal are apps where speed is not essential and they run fine such as MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc. Adobe has just released its Beta version of the Universal Photoshop CS3.
Unlike the Mac, PC's have choices, such as uptodate video cards, even the big daddy Mac Pro has outdated video cards. And its called a "video" machine.
Which, even in its Mac Mini form with integrated Intel graphics, somehow manages to handle Core Graphics and the Aqua effects quite well... while VISTA cannot handle its Aero graphics EXCEPT on a high end graphics card. I wonder why that is.
Unlike the Mac the PC has a ton more choices in hardware and software.
In actual fact, the Mac has MORE software choices than an OS limited PC. The Mac can natively run ALL Windows software as well as UNIX, LINUX, and OS X software.
Sounds like a Windows problem... :-)
Sounds like a Windows problem... :-)
LOL! (twice)
That was funny!
That was funny!
Oh it is a bigtime resource hog. I've never seen anything like it. I'll never use this bloatware. I will use Linux or Mac on my home PCs for my next OS.
The second line in the article states:
"A new version of Microsoft Windows, the world's most popular and important computer operating system"
While Windoze may be the most popular OS, it is no way near the most 'important', cuz without the Mac OS as something to copy, there would be no Windows.
Good call.
I run boxes with WinXP, Win2K, Linux (FC4), and OS-X 10.4 and use whichever makes sense for what I'm doing. I can't think of any reason why I'd need Vista, until Microsoft pulls the rug out from under XP to force conversions. I'm testing a pre-release copy at work, and it's just XP with eye-candy instead of the Fisher-Price XP look. It's a pig unless you've got a screaming CPU and graphics card, and I can do without the extra DRM.
I'll stick with XP for my Windows-only apps, OS-X for my Mac-only apps, and and Linux for everything else, which is nearly everything I do anyway...
Since you are familiar with all two, three or four or more OSs, can you relate what problems one would have shifting over and using OS-X (from a PC)? Specifically, I primarily use the computer for small business tasks (Excel, Word), Outlook communications, internet, MP3 music, etc. Would there be major impediments and difficulties in accomplishing these tasks and communicating with the 90+% PC universe? Lastly, how about shifting files over to a new Mac hard drive?
I don't mean to throw burdensome questions at you and anything you toss back on these issues would be appreciated.
Yes, there is. Notably, because it is long overdue.
Microsoft has simply hedged it's bet with Vista,
Nope, they're rushing it out. Or didn't you notice the dropped features? They dropped the Vista scripting shell (but are releasing it separately; in fact, I've played with it a little), WinFS, and PC-to-PC synchronization. (link: Microsoft Watch).
This isn't about Microsoft playing it cool, it's about a development project gone awry. Besides, it doesn't make any sense for MS to "play it cool" with this. When MS releases software, they wants you, me, everyone to go out and buy it (which is good, that's the free market). Because of their near-monopolistic status, they are actually competing against older versions of their own products. They want you to buy Vista to replace XP. How is stripping down the product going to accomplish that? If Vista looks like, for the most part, a more expensive version of XP, they are not going to get the result they want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.