extremetech.com — There's a lot of confusion about Windows Vista these days. Many online discussion forums have a great number of users who express no desire to upgrade to Vista.ExtremeTech pulls it all together and tell you why they're excited about Vista with a list of what's new and improved in Microsoft's next generation OS and why you should care about it.
Feb 28, 2006 View in Crawl 4
indrekMar 1, 2006
"Why Vista WILL SUCK, and SUCK BAD:1. User Interface still sucks. Would you buy a Ferrari if it looked like a Gremlin?2. Aero needs more horsepower than at least 50% of PC owners have now. Back to the XP face...3. You can try to copy iLife applications, but dude, it's already behind Apple by a few years4. The Sidebar. I mean really, turn my widescreen display back into a 4:3? The System tray was bad enough...5. Explorer 7 is NOT Firefox or Safari. Just give in already Microsoft, and use the tech that works."-DrAtomicus1. Totally your subjective opinion, and thus worth next to nothing. I happen to love the XP interface, and while Aero will take some getting used to, I've found it pleasing to the eye as well.2. Aero Glass, yes. But if everyone kept catering for the Pentium II owners out there, UIs would still be at Windows 9x level. With Vista, if your hardware's up to the task, you can enjoy the full 3D, transparency and the rest of the eye candy. If not, turn off Glass and you get an UI roughly equivalent to that of WinXP. If that's still too sluggish, you can revert to the Windows Classic theme.If you can find a way to run a modern UI, all prettied up, on hardware from the last decade, I'm sure both Microsoft and Apple would be very interested. If not, stop complaining and be happy that Vista will provide legacy UIs for older hardware.3. And iLife itself can try to copy Real Life (tm) but it's behind by about 40,000 years.4. Turn it off if you don't like it.5. They are using tech that works. IE7 is already, in its pre-beta 2 state, a fully functional browser (I'm talking from hundreds of hours of hands-on experience).Oh, and doubleplus to what skyshock21 said.
drahknonMar 1, 2006
The thing about DRM is this: most users won't care. Most users surf the web, compose emails, play a few games and compose documents. They could care less about anything else. Without a doubt, Vista stands a good chance of being more secure and more stable than XP, which is currently installed on the vast majority of home computers. More security and stability can only be a good thing for these people.
buddhistMar 3, 2006
"Buddhist ...do you know how ridiculous your post is? 1. You say that their better IE security doesn't matter becuase of all the "better" (in YOUR worthless opinion) there are. But then you claim that things likehte sidebar won't atter because most users won't know how to enable it.So...the people that are downloaing browsers despite havnig a perfectly good one pre-installed are not going to know how to enable a simple feature?"Yeah, I can say that easily knowing that because my entire family outside of me doesn't know how to do any of that s**t (along with almost everyone who isn't computer-savvy that i come in contact with), but can use and download other browsers.As for Gmail..you DO realize that the vast majority of people do not give a flying f**k about Gmail. Don't you? Seriously, DON'T you realize this, or are you really THAT far removed from society?"If you don't like Gmail, there's about 800 f**king mail clients that are better. Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, Thunderbird, etc etc. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but learn to deal."and then the fact that you use iTunes shows that you have NO perception of quality. And why no one cares about your opinions. Ever."Funny, because I don't always use iTunes, you flaming, ignorant jackass. I use iTunes for basic playing because it has the options I like. Go cry if you don't like it. It's got the features and options I want and need for the things I do. I'm sorry i'm not a 100% open-source, anti-everything douchebag like yourself.Get. Bent.
proidiotMar 25, 2006
"...just reading that article alone should clue in anyone with half a brain as to the future."and uncle sam told us the commies were sent from satanwhy would anyone bother making propoganda if they werent trying to sell you a lie?
proidiotMar 25, 2006
since u mentioned it, anyone know if the rumors about WOW working better under wine than windows has any truth?(any specifically *nix ignorant M$ fanboys: don't even bother, you'll just sound stupid)
proidiotMar 25, 2006
one word:ubuntuif you haven't yet, just try the livecd
slurp812Apr 12, 2006
Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated! And I disagree, it will SUCK. Remember all the crap when win95 came out? and Xp? same crap, You will all be running it, because in a few years, all new video games will run better on it than XP. I will be dual booting XP/vista till I am happy with my vista setup, and then nuke the XP partition. As far as IE, you know if they are trying to emulate Firefox features behaviour, its because Firefox is better. WAY less spyware.
alej744Jun 13, 2006
I bet the new IE won't even have tabbed browsing by then. Haha! Micro$oft sucks testicles!!!! Ha! Ha!!
cbreakerDec 11, 2006
Perhaps. Or, perhaps after looking at Vista they'll say "All this fanfare for THIS?" That was my initial reaction. I don't think it's very good. It's old Windows with some new colors and a fancy 3D stuff that as MacOS proves, doesn't really amount to anything more then eye-candy. (That's not a dig at MacOS, I'm simply stating that Quartz Extreme doesn't really add much to the user experience. Spinny boxes. Who cares. Although the zoom feature in OS X is actually useful..) The colors are just blah. Yea, the icons look nicer, but the terrible baby blue window border (that you apparently can't change) makes me want to puke. Everything is even more webisized then Windows XP. And holy s**t, does it use a lot of resources. I mean, yea, it doesn't matter that much on a box with 3GB of RAM but c'mon, what gives? You can do all that fancy UI stuff in Linux with minimal hardware, so it's not the technology, it's the implementation.Security seems a little bit tighter, but whether or not it will truly be more secure is yet to be seen. My guess is that because of backward compatibility issues there will still be major security holes. It's still Windows NT, still has the same design methodology, still bound to have the same attack vectors.
jasonh1234Nov 4, 2008
I'll wait a minimum of six months after release before I even think of loading it on one of my computers. Even then I won't be overwriting XP with it.