Windows "Vista" pics
- Thread starter mal
- Start date
Pearl Jammzz
Established Member
Vista the new name for longhorn?
Negative Interjection: Any trendy design changes will be lost on me, I always turn on Classic mode on my Windows XP machines. And why do we need a new OS anyway? Windows XP Pro SP1 still works flawlessly for me. Sure it would be nice to have one that takes advantage of my fancy new 64-bit processor, but I see no reason to get rid of something that works great and I'm already familiar with for something new that knowing Microsoft is probably full of bugs in its first few inerations. Someone please enlighten me if I'm wrong on this.
Pearl Jammzz
Established Member
security and future support are the main reasons to upgrade. My parents Win2k pro machine is becomming a haven for spyware and such now...it's becomming like win98, hehe.
From a business standpoint, the reason for a new OS is $$$. MS hasn't released a new OS in 5 years. They normally put new ones out every 2-4 years. Originally, "Longhorn" was going to be a 3.1-95 style jump. It was going to enhance support for 64 bit processors and create a new file system (WinFS). But WinFS has been dropped.
I do like some of the added security features. I'll end up picking this up at some point. Who knows, maybe I'll get a free copy of this too.
I do like some of the added security features. I'll end up picking this up at some point. Who knows, maybe I'll get a free copy of this too.
Pearl Jammzz
Established Member
So it's going to use NTFS?
I like the new user management tools. Finally I can limit what other people do. Win XP does an OK job with that. Also, I like the idea of content between users being protected. The nicest addition is the protection from malware. However, all of these are only small extras. Things that could probably be added to OS X. The only major change is support for 64 bit processors. And thats doesn't matter now, as how many app's support it? I will upgrade to it if I score a free copy of it. Otherwise, I'll wait for awhile. I would be more interested if WinFS was ready.
A lot of what has changed is behind the scenes. New security models, new APIs, etc. "Aero" is the most obvious change from a user's perspective, though it is mostly about cosmetics. 64bit support has been around in Windows for quite a while now, both in specialised (Itanium) and consumer-level products (XP64 and 2003 Server x64), so you could hardly say Vista will "introduce" 64 Bit computing.
Vista will be more of a pardigm shift that is necessary for future change than a breathtaking change in and of itself. MS doesn't need to convice the consumer to upgrade - they only need to have OEMs package it with new systems. Business can be forced to change by cutting support for leagcy products (or making them pay for it).
Vista will be more of a pardigm shift that is necessary for future change than a breathtaking change in and of itself. MS doesn't need to convice the consumer to upgrade - they only need to have OEMs package it with new systems. Business can be forced to change by cutting support for leagcy products (or making them pay for it).
Though 64-bit support has been around, it is far from comonplace for consumers. I have never seen XP 64 for sale in a store, computer or otherwise. Also, PC manufactures still default to Win XP Family. You have to upgrade to Pro, and even then it's the 32 bit version. Though you can order a PC with that. Most people get their OS with their PC. Rarely do they upgrade, even when they need to. I know customers who are still using Win 95. They don't want to upgrade until they get a new PC.
I dont see why they wouldnt finish WinFS before releasing it. As stated before WinXP is working fine for now so why rush the new version other than for the purpose of making money from it..
It would be a pain IMO to have it be released in a Service pack because chances are you will need to reformat the HD.
It would be a pain IMO to have it be released in a Service pack because chances are you will need to reformat the HD.
Similar threads
