Windows Vista Beta 1
-
July 28, 2005 01:33
4.5/5
Ok, first I want the Mac users to tell me why Mac OS is easier to use? To me it seems no more useful than windows. Also, everyone complains that MS copies, but so does everyone else. Where do you think apple got the idea for the ipod? They didn't come up with it themselves, thats for sure. For that matter, who came up with BIOS that ties the PC together? IBM, yet everyone copied that and no one is crying about that. Also, Mac OS is in reality a slow enterprise system. Vista has some pretty impressive technology. Another great microsoft feature is that in windows there is much more control over the OS than Mac OS. -
October 17, 2005 10:04
5.0/5
OK, people REALLY need to stop bashing products on C|Net before the product is even released! Its annoying how people just imply that they won't like it. Really, you people need to wait until you've reviewed the real thing before writing a review. I am giving it a "10" just to make up for at least one person who ahs given it a "1" withought actually using it(and no, beta 1 does NOT count; its a beta!). -
July 29, 2005 01:39
4.0/5
finally, a fully up to date Windows OS. breadcrumbs view of folders is something really useful: you can see all the way to the root folder from your current folder, and navigate to any folder or subfolder all the way to the root with only two clicks -- sounds complicated, but a doodle to use.
virtual folders is awesome as well. this might be the first time i actually let Windows do the organising for me. And it's great that one can use the task pane to change criteria on the fly (seeing only files of particular types, or particular date ranges, etc).
As for charges of copying: well, everyone copies the best features of everyone else. Mac OS X has its fair share of ideas from Windows and other programs as well. Task-based Control Panel, for example. And Search has been around on the Microsoft side since MSN Desktop Search.
And surprisingly, it seems to be a very speedy performer as well. From what I can see, it's at least as fast as XP on the same machine. Very optimised.
Of course, this is just Beta 1, so it'd be interesting to see what new things will come up in Beta 2 -- THAT would really be something worth testing out! -
August 2, 2005 10:33
4.0/5
I am a mac user that hates wining mac users that hate everything microsoft... Quit wining and use your mac already.
If this os is not a resource hog i might convert back... stabilty aside most mac apps are not as good as the same ones built for pc.......never leave mac altogether but might make me get a high powered laptop cheaper than a powerbook
It looks nothing like tiger -
August 4, 2005 09:25
Spectacular
2.5/5
I've used both Vista (Beta) and Mac OS X Tiger. Let me first say that I'm a windows user who switched to Mac. I always really liked MS and Windows, but security threats and poor OS performance convinced me to switch to Mac. To tell you the truth I'm much happier using a Mac (Easer to use, faster, more responsive, smaller footprint). Also, I'm not going to compare Vista to Tiger, because they aren't meant to compete with one another. Leopard will compete with Vista. The only thing I'll say is that by the time MS gets Vista shipping Mac users will be moving on to the next level. With every Mac OS X upgrade huge improvements were maid. Leopard will be no exception, and I believe it will blow Vista out of the water.
Let me first tell you what I really like about Vista. The new interface is much better than anything they have had before. You actually see the file instead of an icon in explorer. This is a big time saver and much smarter than using a resource file for the job. The search feature is much better.
Now for the bad. Nothing in Vista looks original. They copied many interface designs from Apple. The search interface is a feeble attempt to copy Spotlight?s interface. No new File System! They really messed up on this one. Longhorn was going to be amazing cuz of the new file system. Now that it has been pulled you can expect XP's flaws to plague you in Vista. If the File System is the same, the OS will have to run extremely similar to the way XP runs. Now about the name. Vista? What were they thinking? This just sounds cold and uninviting and more importantly un-cool. Lets face it cool is the name of the game.
Have to wait to see if Vista really is a better OS than XP when it ships. By then I'll be running my copy on my Intel Mac. Who says you can't have it all?
-
October 17, 2005 10:52
4.5/5
Windows Vista is going to be great. It has so many new features which are totally new compare to the previous versions. Its really easy to find your files. For instance, you can assign keyword for files. So its very easy to streamline, manage and find files on the PC. If you know little bit about the file, you can find it.
Microsoft is coming up with new look. Windows are transparent, like a glass. It helps you to focus on the content of the window. There are so many great things about this OS. Microsoft will offer support for auxiliary display. For instance, suppose on your laptop you want to see your new email messages, contacts, buddy list and other basic information, without turning on the laptop. Manufacturer will offer auxiliary display on the laptops and the desktops, so the users can get the essential daily information without turning on everything. If you are looking to buy a PC, Ill recommend wait til second half of 2006. It will be the best time to buy a computer. Todays hardware and especially the CPUs are getting better and better such as, Pentium D dual-core processors. But the Microsoft OS Windows XP which was release in 2001 is kind of old for new hardware.
For more information about Windows Vista please visit this URL http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/organization.mspx -
August 8, 2005 03:40
Spectacular
2.5/5
It's just too early to tell if Vista is going to be a great leap from Windows XP SP2. From what I have read and seen, Microsoft are heavily leveling Vista with the competition. UI tweaks are straight from Mac OSX and back end tweaks are taken from Linux and Unix. If this all works (and it's too early in the beta to tell) then the resulting operating system will certainly be a step forward from XP.
How much of a step is a good question. Most organisations endured the 2000 to XP migration reluctantly. Most of them were forced to do the change to support 'improved' and 'more reliable' back-end products such as Active Directory, SQL, BizTalk, and even Office Suite 2003 etc. If they did not they would risk being unsupportable or realising only limited features from their huge investments.
And the route from 2000 to XP was not a good one. One can only be concerned that the installation of Vista is going to be another '2000 to XP', i.e. another of Microsoft's famous rip-and-replace upgrade strategies. I remember with nightmares the Exchange 5.5 to 2000/2003 migration route and in fact between any of the Microsoft products that I have used to date. Most have left me with sleepless nights, high levels of stress, and lots of lost data.
The thought of touching 10K desktops or similar to add search, better graphics, and a whole heap of likely help desk calls doesn't inspire me either. Vista will of course replace XP. By stealth it will work it's way into the desktop: new PC's will have it installed, all the latest Microsoft software will require it, and Intel's marketing team will want to sell you shiny new dual core processors to run it.
This is of course just a Beta and an early one at that, so I would hope that by the final product automated deployment will be an option (and not something that requires an exclusive proprietary Microsoft architecture). I would also hope that the final Vista product is more than a few UI tweaks and rewritten Linux code. -
October 14, 2005 07:58
4.5/5
Whats up with all the things against MS and specially IE?
I mean when has a security hole actually affected you (more than 1 or maybe 2 times?)
If you are like my clients which are idiots when it comes to PC's and click YES on all the frigin popups that appear telling you its gonna install a "system optimzer" or an atomic clock synchronizer or whatever all the crapload of thigs some company's invent then its YOUR problem for being such an idiot (i'm not saying you do or you are)
I dont have either an AV or a firewall(except for windows firewall, MS Antispyware, and my router's firewall) installed on my PC's and until now i have NEVER ever had a problem with it and it runs as smooth as the first time i used it.
And i know im not infected.. just look at yoour msconfig startup programs or the processes you are currently running and you can get an idea if your computer is clean
And if you have ever been affected by any security hole IE or microsoft has had( i was by MSBlaster only), then think about it, who do you think will spend their time on finidng a hole in a Mac's OS and code a worm so that probably 50 computers ( it could even be called a coincidence for a MAC worm to actually generate an IP of a MAC computer) out of the 4% of the computer OS market share get infected?. Ok maybe not 4%... but 3%. -
October 3, 2005 09:10
4.5/5
Anything to do with microsft, there is always a group out there to bash it. Every software company steals from somebody. Linux borrows from Unix. Mac Os X borrows from Linux and Microsoft borrows from others and makes the most money doing it. Oh yeah and if the anti-microsft people dont like Vista, here is a helpful advice dont use it (how smart is that). Vista is a major improvement for Microsft so far and a think they are heading in the right direction. I guest we will all have to wait and see. -
August 3, 2005 08:20
Spectacular
2.5/5
From what I've seen so far, there doesn't seem to be any spectacular improvements. And lets face it, how much more computing power does a home user require? Internet, e-mail, word processing all runs fine on a Pentium III with win98 or 2000.
In addition, it seems that microsoft has "borrowed" from others - in particular Apple. I use a PC, but Mac is looking better and better all the time.
