http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-03-21-vista-delay_x.htm

I guess this also means that Halo 3 (Forerunner) is going to be out before Halo 2 is out on PC.

Meh.

Yea! Postpone it forever!


[Edit: typo...]

vista? who gives a ****?

Agreed.

People who are actually willing to give it a chance, rather than shrug it off as a crappy upgrade, only to upgrade in a year or two when they've finally been proven wrong about it. Just like XP.

I can't f'ing wait for Vista. It's seriously going to be awesome--I'm excited about the file system and the command prompt most of all though. Aero should be sweet too.

It's a bunch of useless GUI that'll take up insane amounts of memory to run, and all its features is already covered by mac.

>.>

However, I am obliged to get vista.

Actually, most of the features of Vista far supercede the minimal things the Mac has to offer. And it'll probably be a lot better about being GPU-intensive than OSX is.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Actually, most of the features of Vista far supercede the minimal things the Mac has to offer. And it'll probably be a lot better about being GPU-intensive than OSX is.[/QUOTE]The latest Vista beta causes my X1800 to run hot all of the time. Every application in Vista is a Direct3D app and Solitaire has framerate issues.

I can't see the situation improving significantly. The overwhelming majority of users will be stuck with Aero.

Yeah, I mean, they only have a year to fix the problems, and it's not like you're using an Alpha build or anything.

Oh...wait...

Vista seems like more and more of a disappointment everytime I hear it's name.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Yeah, I mean, they only have a year to fix the problems, and it's not like you're using an Alpha build or anything.

Oh...wait...[/QUOTE]
The issues are hardware prerformance issues. Vista's resources are much larger (4x) than Mac resources and it makes heavier use of vector graphics. The only way to solve the issue is to do less on the graphics hardware. Everybody who has actually used Vista, Microsoft employees included, have acknowledged that Aero Glass is hardware-intensive and that relatively few people will be able to use it to good effect.

But if you want to act all emo and like you know what you're talking about, go ahead.

Emo? Uh...k.

For sure it's going to be more hardware intensive...but you make it sound like you're going to be running FEAR full-on. The full effects of Aero are definitely only going to show in the enthusiast market, but that doesn't mean a lot of the enhancements you see in OSX and then some aren't going to peek their head. It's going to be fairly intensive, but seriously, I'm sure there's a LOT of optimizations to go. Not to mention much more powerful video hardware to come.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Actually, most of the features of Vista far supercede the minimal things the Mac has to offer. And it'll probably be a lot better about being GPU-intensive than OSX is.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]For sure it's going to be more hardware intensive...[/QUOTE]I accept your concession.

Well, considering I never changed my position, I don't know what you're accepting. OSX is really proc-intensive, and as much shows with the speediness of the new macs as well as when you move between the generations (G4 and G5). Vista will be more GPU-intensive.

I hate how the ignore function is actually worthless because people just quote the person I have on ignore.

Yes.. that *really* needs to be fixed.

I would like to hear what Vista is actually bringing to the table that makes my life easier. I don't consider flashy guis very important enough to warrant a new operating system..

A -much- safer operating system--no registry. Also the virtual folder system should cut down on conventional spam/viurses quite a bit. The new command prompt is very neat, and draws a lot from Linux (good). DirectX 10 support of course. There's quite a few good things about it.

Unfortunately most of the big improvements in Vista have been cancelled, delayed for a later release, or postponed until Vienna. Vista has always been intended to be an interim release - a version of Windows that serves as a bridge between the 'old' APIs and user interface and the new one - but the amount of new technology has slipped substantially.

The typical end user likely won't notice much of a difference between XP and Vista. People with more advanced hardware will get a visually-appealing desktop, but that's about it. Developers, on the other hand, are given a far richer and more effective API. The most significant impact of Vista for you will be the influx of higher-quality, more stable and more feature-rich applications.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]A -much- safer operating system--no registry. Also the virtual folder system should cut down on conventional spam/viurses quite a bit. The new command prompt is very neat, and draws a lot from Linux (good). DirectX 10 support of course. There's quite a few good things about it.[/QUOTE]
In case you're on his ignore list...

Actually, they said Vista WILL ship with the file system iirc. They also said something about the command prompt, but I don't remember what. Not to mention, even if you don't use Aero, MS decided to make customizing your desktop much easier (and without the need of patching uxtheme or something like that). My estimate is that, with the delay, most of the add-ons will ship with Vista.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]A -much- safer operating system--no registry.[/QUOTE]Applications cannot write to anything except HKCU unless you have administrator privileges. This is one of the reasons many applications cannot run without administrator privileges on older versions of Windows: the real reason Vista is more secure is because you are able to run all applications in a user account.

I don't understand your logic here. The traditional file heirarchy still exists.

Monad (MSH) was, if anything, inspired by the original Bourne Shell. UNIX =/= Linux. This is not a semantic point, there are significant differences, and you should be aware of this before making comments like this one.

MSH was not designed to make Windows more like UNIX; MSH is essentially a replacement of both NTVDM and WSH for Windows server administrators. MSH allows you to create scripts with the same robustness of Bash scripts. MSH scripts can also use .NET objects, so it's a lot closer to WSH-executed VBScript than anything else.

It will not affect the typical household user.

DirectX 10's interface is not compatible with previous versions of DirectX. You will need D3D10 drivers for your video card in order to use it at all. As a result, it will be a very long time before D3D10 is used for games. Yoshi is correct, however: there are a great deal of benefits to D3D10.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Actually, they said Vista WILL ship with the file system iirc.[/QUOTE]WinFS is just an extension sitting on top of NTFS. It adds a basic relational database for specific files ("My Documents") and a catalogue of specifications for XML serialization. It's not a huge deal: NTFS is still the underlying file system and the file heirarchy still exists.

It should improve data security a bit, however. NTFS does metadata journalling and WinFS stores much more information about your personal documents in the metadata.

WinFS is still in early beta. Until it is 100% known stable it won't be released for non-developers. This will probably happen in 2007, so with the newest delay it might find its way into Vista on release.

Monad (MSH), although NTVDM/CMD still exists. The last time I checked MSH was being delayed for Vienna (Vista Server), mostly because it offers no benefits for people who would use the home editions of Vista.

Trusted Computing and EFI were dropped for Vista. EFI will probably be in the 64-bit version of Vista but it's not a guarantee.

Unix may not = Linux, but to the layperson who will not be using said shell for administrative purposes, the basic functions that they use the shell for are ubiquitous between the *NIXes. You are right, however--it's not targetted at the average user. However, I'm sure the average massassian will find quite a bit of use in it.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]However, I'm sure the average massassian will find quite a bit of use in it.[/QUOTE]I think you grossly overestimate what the average massassian uses his computer for.

The major changes between Server 2003 and Vienna involve presenting a textmode interface for absolutely every server administration task, where previously you had to do some things with a GUI. Monad is only useful for the automation of server administration.

Everything you can do with Monad you can do with GUI tools.

I think you severely underestimate how much Massassians like to be elitist bastards that say "Hey, look, I can use a COMMAND PROMPT."

Not to mention there's one thing I'm excited about--launching programs via command prompt Linux-style. At least, iirc, that's going to be in there.

In what way is that different to the Command Prompt at the moment?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]I think you severely underestimate how much Massassians like to be elitist bastards that say "Hey, look, I can use a COMMAND PROMPT."

Not to mention there's one thing I'm excited about--launching programs via command prompt Linux-style. At least, iirc, that's going to be in there.[/QUOTE]

You can run programs from command prompt already. Now, if you meant running programs IN the command prompt, then that's a whole different story, and it's not entirely the windows command shell's fault. It's the lack of compatible programs for it. If the new command prompt has much easier and more common scripting, then we should see more programs that run in console.

Anyone know how much disk space it's going to eat up?

I'm not sure what you mean by "applications cannot run without administrator privileges". I've used limited user accounts, and I've been able to run programs on XP. Could you clarify what you meant there?

I'll be using my next machine to play games, watch films, edit video, listen to music and download games, music and videos.

Maybe noodle around with mspaint.

Will XP do the job or should i get this Vista?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]the command prompt [/QUOTE]

What changes are they making to command prompt? I hope it becomes more Unix-like.

I think he said many, some will not work with limited user accounts

[QUOTE=Cool Matty]You can run programs from command prompt already. Now, if you meant running programs IN the command prompt, then that's a whole different story, and it's not entirely the windows command shell's fault. It's the lack of compatible programs for it. If the new command prompt has much easier and more common scripting, then we should see more programs that run in console.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm talking about a more linux-like version. In linux you type "firefox", or "glxgears" or "xchat" or whatever you want to run, and it runs. In windows you have to know the path, the filename, etc. A pain.


Read the thread?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]No, I'm talking about a more linux-like version. In linux you type "firefox", or "glxgears" or "xchat" or whatever you want to run, and it runs. In windows you have to know the path, the filename, etc. A pain.


Read the thread?[/QUOTE]

Well, the only reason the bash console works like that is because it looks in a few common areas for programs. If you have something installed in your home folder, you won't be able to execute it as normal.

If you don't believe me, go to /usr/bin and move everything in there to a different folder (note that this will probably break your shell, and will require knoppix to fix it :p )

Windows works in the same way. If you want to be able to execute a program from any location in the command prompt, the executable must be in the /windows/ directory. (I have mplayer installed there, so I can run it from anywhere in command prompt )

The only real advantage unix/linux shells like BASH have, is they have the luxury of symbolic linking. You can install a program anywhere, and just drop a symlink in /usr/bin and it'll work fine. Windows shortcuts do not work for this.

I don't know if the "path" variable still works in XP, but try opening up a command line and typing "SET PATH = "C:\folder to look for programs." You could create a folder full of shortcuts and use this to run them all from any directory while in the command line, because, IIRC, you can run shortcuts in the command line, either by typing shortcutname.lnk or "start shortcutname.lnk."

I'd like to double-check my stuff, but I'm on my Mac right now.

This is exactly what I want though. It's very handy, as most of the time I can windowskey+run+type in name faster than I can hunt down the icon unless it's a select 4 or 5 programs.

Well that's new, I didn't know you could run shortcuts. Guess I never tried adding on the .lnk to it.

Oh, and the SET PATH thing now has its own GUI config in Win2000/XP. It's located in the System Properties (right click on my computer, hit properties). Just go to the Advanced tab and hit environmental variables.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]No, I'm talking about a more linux-like version. In linux you type "firefox", or "glxgears" or "xchat" or whatever you want to run, and it runs. In windows you have to know the path, the filename, etc. A pain.[/QUOTE]
That's because their binaries are in a common directory, e.g. /usr/bin or /usr/share/bin, and those directories are in the path variable.

You can do the same thing in Windows, although I'm not sure why you would want to. If you want a common bin folder, I would suggest making a folder of shortcuts to your favorite programs, or hardlinks (with NTFS Link, think symbolic links in Windows, NTFS Link is the easiest way to do it) to them. But, like I said, why? It's not so you can go "lol I'm running **** from the command prompt, I'm hardcore," I hope.