http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_beta1_gallery_06.asp There's a few screen shots. Looks AWFULLY familiar... http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_beta1_01.asp My unhappy reaction to the Windows Hardware Engineering (WinHEC) 2005 build of Longhorn is now, shall we say, infamous. I wasn't trying to make a statement per se. But I did refer to the next major version of Windows as a "train wreck," so I guess it makes sense that people would latch onto that statement. (snip) If you boot the system with the Windows Vista Beta 1 CD, you'll notice a slight change in the language used to prompt you to hit any key to start Setup: It says you can boot "from CD or DVD" and not just from CD like previous Windows versions. CD or DVD... Well, there goes every computer that doesn't have enough power to run a DVD player (mine can, but it struggles.) Of course, it's only 900 mhz which is slow by today's standards, but some people don't want be forced to upgrade their machines every 2 or 3 years. Some people are still using 98SE on their primary machines. I also heard two rumors that (1) it will require a special monitor in order to play encoded video... (I'll believe this when I see it.) and (2), it will be somewhere around 50% drivers. I knew there was a reason why a 350 gig hard drive was on the shelf. And finally, Slashdot reports Windows Vista faces lawsuits. Some comments as well. In their defense, things can change, but will they change the entire GUI in a year? Probably not drastically.
Well, Windows XP, X-Windows, Mac OS, etc all look pretty familiar. All GUI operating systems look similar to each other. It looks like that's from the article you quoted, and the rest of your post are your own comments, correct? There's a very simple solution. Don't upgrade. And there's nothing stopping people from continuing to do so. Are you talking about encrypted DVD-I that cable companies have been threatening to use for a while? There are a lot of monitors on the market that have both a DVD-I input and a standard VGA input. I'm not sure what you mean by "50% drivers." You essentially took a review of the latest beta and made it sound as if the reviewer hated the next version of Windows, which is not even close to what his review said. None of which has to do with the review. Why should they have to?
Interesting screen shots, what are the specs to run it again? Oh yeah, $500 for the OS, 2 GB RAM, 80 GB HDD, .......
mac was the ********ing one stole the GUI and launch the stupid lion or whatever the crappy os first. why don't you really stop twisting the fact you stupid mac fan boy and face the truth? i really hate those stupid mac users. they are ********in liar by nature. they have nothing but deceive on their side. mods really start yellow carding them all. ********ing loser
everybody please don't waste your money on mac and buy windows. never mind linux, it's gonna be history pretty soon anyway
Xerox PARC had the GUI first, didn't realize what they had so they let Apple in and Jobs knew what it was and took off with it. Gates did to Jobs what Jobs did to PARC, only difference is that Gates was more underhanded about how he stole it. In a World without fences, who needs Gates?
And that's probably why some people won't/can't upgrade. Me, i'm clocking in at 900Mhz. My primary HD is somewhere around 40 gig, my second, used primarily for music and word documents, is somewhere around 4 gig. You think I can upgrade without buying a new computer??
In all honesty no. Your HDD is fine, I would say get a faster Processor, and get plenty of RAM. A good video card will help, hell upgrade your ram and video card in the PC you have now and you will see a boost in performance.
Why would you want to? The 9x windows OS's were train wrecks and 2k/XP were major improvements, so I can see upgrading in that case. Vista wont have that same advantage, as 2k/XP are nice stable OS's. Unless there is a major shift the only reason to get Vista is if your getting a new machine.
That's quite a bit of revisionist history Graphical user interface History of the graphical user interface History of Microsoft Windows Apple versus Microsoft
Actually, no they don't. Xerox PARC did indeed develop a GUI, but it was based on earlier work done elsewhere. And a lot of people left Xerox to join Apple to work on Lisa (which was actually named for Jobs' daughter). Lisa proved to be bug ridden, expensive and impossible to finish, so it was scrapped, but the WIMP paradigm survived at Apple in the development of the Mac. At the same time Apple was working on their version of the GUI, other companies, like Digital Research, Commodore, IBM, Microsoft, etc were ALL working on their versions of the WIMP paradigm. Not all the PARC guys went to Apple. Some went to those companies, and some stayed at Xerox. All the major software companies were trying to come up with a version of Window, Icon, Menu, Pointing device way to use computers as an alternative to text-based interaction. The idea that Apple somehow invented the GUI and that Microsoft stole it from them is a load of crap. What led to Microsoft's domination over Apple in the OS market had a lot more to do with business mistakes that Apple made than anything Microsoft did. For one thing, Apple flat out refused to port the Mac OS to Intel chips back in '85, which is when Bill Gates presented the idea to John Scully. Apple's chief scientist, Jean Louis Gassee, would not allow it.
http://www.computing.co.uk/personal-computer-world/features/2045763/men-really-invented-gui http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,289893,sid9_gci213989,00.html Thing is, MS was last of the 3 Xerox PARC, and Apple to come up with a GUI. MS does not innovate, they embrace and extend all that they have. Even DOS was an example of the embrace concept. Their innovation consists of buying other companies or forcing them out. Tis the truth.
It's not the truth. It's anti-Microsoft propaganda. Microsoft's research and development budget is nearly $8 billion. Of course, you've already got your mind made up.
Lets see, I work as an MCSE, I use M$ products daily, yeah I know nothing of what I speak about.... What has MS created on their own that they didn't steal, or buy the company that came up with the idea first? Obviously not the GUI, lets see, what about the TCP/IP stack? Oh that's right lifted right from Open BSD source code. IE you say? Hmmmmm......nope, taken from work done at U of I. So what have they come up with on their own?
The .NET framework and the Common Language Runtime. Developing and deploying applications has never been easier than it is today with Visual Studio .NET.
it's simple microsoft is the best because they always have better product and strategy. losers like mac/linux never stop whinning because they just cannot win. mac fans will continue to make a stupid thread like this and lifeless linux fan boys will work 24/7 making viruses for windows. amazing when people are so jealous.
Ironically, you don't seem to understand that you're just as bad as the fanboys you're complaining about, do you? Why don't you STFU?
if you are a mcse then act like one. say "i love microsoft" three times after you wake up. you really think being mcse makes you smart all of the sudden?
I am just calling it like I see it. I didn't say that the MS products are crap, I happen to like 2003 Server, and Sharepoint is a good product too. C# is good, don't know as much about it though. Being an MCSE means that I can pass the tests. I can answer the questions that MS is asking and I can do the sims, which I prefer to the other questions MS has, and the certs help in job searches. I plan to become more knowledgable with Unix systems as well, can do alot with them. Frankly I like various systems, there are good and bad in both. I am using Firefox to post this, love the tabbed browsing. I am running XP on this box and don't have any issues with it. Haven't had the chance to do much with OS-X or tiger yet, but they look good. I am really hyped about the 3d OS though. Lots of good stuff out there, try not to be such a single minded person.
For what it's worth, I've been working in the computer business since the early 80s. I was in the Air Force for part of it, but I worked on computers in the Air Force, first on mainframes, then on microcomputers (or PCs). The first non-mainframe operating system I ever used professionally was CP/M on an old Cromenco System 1 which was based around a Z80 chip. I started using PCs that ran on MS-DOS when the USAF decided to award a contract to Zenith to replace all the Cromencos with Zenith Z-100s and Z-150s. IIRC, those machines came pre-loaded with MS-DOS 3.x and had installation floppies for Windows version 1.0. I installed Windows, and found the only thing it had that was worth a damn was Reversi, the game that looked like Othello. I started writing code for Windows in version 2.0, and in fact I still have the SDKs and manuals for that program in my basement somewhere. Back in the early days, no one had any idea that Microsoft would become what they are today. In fact, for a while I tried my hand at programming OS/2 because that looked like the direction the industry was headed in. Having lived through a large portion of the evolution of the desktop computer industry, I can say that I don't see Microsoft as some evil entity that is hell-bent on destroying their competition. Bill Gates is, of course, an extremely shrewd businessman, but he also has had a lot of luck on his side throughout the years. Another thing that Microsoft innovated, like it or not, is the idea of paying for software. If that hadn't happened, I honestly do not think the PC computer industry would be what it is today, and people like me would not be making the kind of salaries we can command in the market. Personally, I think getting paid a lot to be a programmer is a good thing.
That's what I don't get. How does a new OS FORCE people to upgrade? It doesn't. People choose to upgrade because they want to run newer software. To do that, they need a newer machine. I agree with the aspect of the complaint that as far as software engineering goes, new software should be able to run better than before with the same or older equipment. The problem is that the market isn't demanding that. Replacing or upgrading their PC every 3 - 5 years isn't that big of a deal, especially with the drops in pricing + increases in performance over that time.
Exactly. No one would complain if their old IBM XT machine built in 1983 wasn't capable of running Windows 3.0. Why would someone complain that their old Dell built in 2001 might not be capable of running Windows Vista? I can't remember the last time that writing tight fast code was given a higher priority that writing code that worked. Absolutely. When Vista ships, you'll be able to buy a PC that runs it for the same price that Windows XP PC costs today. Hell, probably less.