13 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
13.
 
No subject
Feb 24, 2006, 05:07
13.
No subject Feb 24, 2006, 05:07
Feb 24, 2006, 05:07
 
So far, everything I see about Vista has me scratching my head and wondering, "why do I need that, again?"

Because you have no choice. M$ will infect the planet with Vista through OEM preloads and discontinuation of support for XP in key upcoming products (AKA "killer apps").

The noobs will eat it up; the hardware manufacturers and game developers will follow. And then, so will you.

Halo 2 is one example; no technical requirements force it to be made for Vista, no advantage in quality is gained, yet M$ has made it Vista-only.

That is what they must resort to, because the world has caught on to how bad MS operating systems really are. You're not the only one asking "Why do I need Vista?"

12.
 
Re: Vista 5308
Feb 23, 2006, 20:52
12.
Re: Vista 5308 Feb 23, 2006, 20:52
Feb 23, 2006, 20:52
 
Window transparency has been a feature of Windows since Windows 2000, it's just that hardly anyone uses it.

11.
 
Re: Vista 5308
Feb 23, 2006, 20:08
11.
Re: Vista 5308 Feb 23, 2006, 20:08
Feb 23, 2006, 20:08
 
I guess we'll see what stops working without DX9 support. MS would be crazy to make it a requirement, as most work PCs don't have that kind of graphic card support. I still use a Ti4200 at work. Heck, if you're looking at the total PC market, many PC don't even have separate video cards and use crappy integrated video.

10.
 
Re: Vista 5308
Feb 23, 2006, 19:33
10.
Re: Vista 5308 Feb 23, 2006, 19:33
Feb 23, 2006, 19:33
 
I can't believe that MS would require at least a DX9 card just to run the OS

If you want to run it with all of Aero's effects then, yes, it will require a DX9 class card (and, come on -- that dates back to the ATI Radeon 9700 and GeForce4 series of cards). But you can certainly run Vista without all of the Aero eye candy -- although eventually I bet you'll not be able to use some applications.

9.
 
Re: Vista 5308
Feb 23, 2006, 18:59
9.
Re: Vista 5308 Feb 23, 2006, 18:59
Feb 23, 2006, 18:59
 
I also read DX10 was Vista only, although I'm still thinking there will be pressure to add it for XP. The article also said a DX9 (or better) graphics cards would be required to run Vista. I can't believe that MS would require at least a DX9 card just to run the OS. Most games aren't even that strict. I suppose that also means that all older games would also be no longer supported under Vista? How does that DX10 carrot look now?
This comment was edited on Feb 23, 19:02.
8.
 
Re: Vista 5308
Feb 23, 2006, 16:22
8.
Re: Vista 5308 Feb 23, 2006, 16:22
Feb 23, 2006, 16:22
 

As long as they release DX10 for XP I can't see any reason to go to Vista.

Yeah, ditto. Any word on whether or not that's likely to happen though? 'cause I could have sworn that I read DX10 would be Vista only a little while back.

But you're absolutely right that there really isn't a lot of point in fretting about what might or might not happen when Vista ships -- there's just no way to know any of that stuff for sure until it's an actual retail product and people have had a chance to bang on it for a bit.

I can't help it though. I know they're just as worried that I'm not going to upgrade and begin having my digital rights managed, as I am that they're going to force me to, and it would be just like them to hold onto a juicy carrot like DX10 to accomplish such a thing..

-----
GW: Tashen Boke [R/Me]; Rosti The Ninja [Mo/R]; Gort Grimley [W/Ne]
-----
I'm not even angry. I'm being so sincere right now, even though you broke my heart and killed me.
7.
 
No subject
Feb 23, 2006, 15:05
7.
No subject Feb 23, 2006, 15:05
Feb 23, 2006, 15:05
 
No way I want my 3d card running full out all the time to get those effects. Most modern high-end cards are clocked way lower when using the desktop.

It saves on power costs, heat, and the cards lifespan.

"We're not the same, I'm an American, you're a sick a--hole." - William 'D-Fens' Foster
"Pants! Pants! Pants!"
6.
 
Re: Vista 5308
Feb 23, 2006, 14:22
6.
Re: Vista 5308 Feb 23, 2006, 14:22
Feb 23, 2006, 14:22
 
Now take a look at the transparency effects on display in this screenshot

Oh, that's royally useless, no question. And making the taskbar pseudo transparent can only be of use if you have the bar set to auto-hide (which it isn't) -- in that case it could pop up without having to resize your apps.

Transparency should be used subtly and for specific reasons. Are you surprised that MS didn't get it? I'm not.

yet I know beyond a shadow of a doubt I'll be forced to upgrade to it someday..

Yeah. Same. But I thought much the same about XP and it's activation "features" back before it came out. Really all the pontificating on whether or not Vista is worth a shit is useless right now -- even with the betas floating around it won't be apparent what the advantages and drawbacks will be until well after it's released.

I'm hoping I can use XP for some time to come; so far the only "compelling" reason I've heard for moving to Vista is its alleged support of CableCard for media center PCs, and even then it's so DRM entangled as to be nearly useless (and then there are the allegations that you won't be able to build your own cablecard capable system).

As long as they release DX10 for XP I can't see any reason to go to Vista. Even the "XP only" games work just fine on Win2k for instance. It's all a matter of how many hoops you're willing to jump through to make things work... and we won't know which OS has fewer hoops for a year or two.

5.
 
Re: Vista 5308
Feb 23, 2006, 13:25
Jim
5.
Re: Vista 5308 Feb 23, 2006, 13:25
Feb 23, 2006, 13:25
Jim
 
It's an effect that's been in all the other windowing systems (X11 first, OS X's Aero more recently) for years now.

OS X? Really? I use a Mac almost every day and I didn't notice the OS having transparency. Unless its just so subtle that I don't notice it, unlike Vista screens where it seems to be an in your face feature.

Jim
4.
 
Re: Vista 5308
Feb 23, 2006, 13:08
4.
Re: Vista 5308 Feb 23, 2006, 13:08
Feb 23, 2006, 13:08
 
It's an effect that's been in all the other windowing systems (X11 first, OS X's Aero more recently) for years now.

And it can be useful to see stuff in a background window while your focus is on the foreground. Without the background window having to spam alerts and messages all over the damn windowing system.

How's about this as a trivial example -- a semi-transparantefind dialog? Now you don't have to move the damn dialog box all over the screen to read text. The same goes for a lot of other dialog boxes inside apps.

OK, sure those other OSs can do window transparency, but working in OSX every day, I can tell you that it is not a widely used effect. In fact, I'm at a loss to give you one single example outside of the Command+Tab task-switching bezel where Apple has implemented it.

But OK, I'm willing to agree with you on the possible advantage to such a thing. Now take a look at the transparency effects on display in this screenshot:

http://blog.pcmag.com/photos/millers_photos/images/77/original.aspx

WTF is going on there? We get to peek through the tool/address-bar section of the windows, but whatever shows through from behind is completely blurred out of recognition by miracle space-age graphics wizardry..

Does it increase my productivity to be able to see through the thin bands of graphic that make up the edges of my windows? Because instead of being useful like it could be in your example, Z, I can't read anything back there.

This appears to me to be only useful for people who can't seem to understand the concept that when one window is covering another, conceptually, you can consider that window to be in front of the one it is covering. I mean.. isn't that blindingly fucking obvious already by the decades-old pictorial representation? I think so, but apparently not. Anyway, I really can't fathom another reason to include such an effect.

And that still doesn't explain what possible reason they have for making the taskbar transparent.


I haven't looked at MS's particular implementation, but it's supposed to be just the same as any of the other sidebars out there (e.g. - Konfabulator, Apple's Dashboard, Google Desktop, etc.).

I used Google Desktop's sidebar briefly, but without a widescreen it took up too much real estate. I can't imagine using one unless you had a widescreen monitor, or ran at 1600x1200 (or higher).

I know it's a personal thing, but I can't abide by calendars and things blinking at me from the corners of my screen unless I actually need to be looking at them, and as you say, Sidebar, GD, and Konfab all require a real estate sacrifice that just ain't worth it IMO.

But Dashboard isn't actually the same as those other apps you mention, even though they can all be used to accomplish the same types of jobs.

For one thing, DB at least gets it right in that when you're not using it, it gets completely the fuck outta your way (and most importantly, isn't trying to saunter back into view because you accidentally flicked your mouse over the 'activate' zone).

One of the biggest differences, however, is that Dashboard will let you devote your entire display to a task, meaning that you can potentially view just as much info in Dashboard at a glance as you can on any other window in the OS (for example, my dashboard at work simply has a giant photo of my GF on it that I can look at whenever I feel like it).

There's no real estate sacrifice there, because DB is only present when you're interested in it, but if you need to, you can simply drag widgets straight out of your Dashboard and pin them to your desktop so that they're always visible (which then mirrors the functionality of Konfab and the rest).

Nah, DB is actually useful, because Apple did such a clean job of working it into the OS. This sidebar thing truly is a monstrosity as far as I can tell.


It just makes me grouchy this Vista, because there really doesn't seem to be anything in there I'd want, the few half-decent ideas I do see appear half-baked, the DRM is a nightmare I am philosophically opposed to, and yet I know beyond a shadow of a doubt I'll be forced to upgrade to it someday..




-----
GW: Tashen Boke [R/Me]; Rosti The Ninja [Mo/R]; Gort Grimley [W/Ne]
This comment was edited on Feb 23, 13:17.
-----
I'm not even angry. I'm being so sincere right now, even though you broke my heart and killed me.
3.
 
Re: Vista 5308
Feb 23, 2006, 11:41
nin
3.
Re: Vista 5308 Feb 23, 2006, 11:41
Feb 23, 2006, 11:41
nin
 

So far, everything I see about Vista has me scratching my head and wondering, "why do I need that, again?"


Exactly...and any power user/gamer will be the first one to go in and turn all those bells and whistles off, to improve performance...

And once you do that, why did you upgrade in the first place?

See ya @ Vista SP2 or later, MS...







--------------------------------------------------------------
GW: Nilaar Madalla, lvl 20 R/Mo / Tolyl Nor, lvl 20 E/Mo / Xylos Gath, lvl 13 W/Mo

http://www.goldfrapp.co.uk/
2.
 
Re: Vista 5308
Feb 23, 2006, 11:36
2.
Re: Vista 5308 Feb 23, 2006, 11:36
Feb 23, 2006, 11:36
 
hy exactly do people want their windows going transparent, Microsoft?

It's an effect that's been in all the other windowing systems (X11 first, OS X's Aero more recently) for years now.

And it can be useful to see stuff in a background window while your focus is on the foreground. Without the background window having to spam alerts and messages all over the damn windowing system.

How's about this as a trivial example -- a semi-transparantefind dialog? Now you don't have to move the damn dialog box all over the screen to read text. The same goes for a lot of other dialog boxes inside apps.

WTF is that sidebar monstrosity? Looks like the retarded step-child of Dock meets Dashboard

I haven't looked at MS's particular implementation, but it's supposed to be just the same as any of the other sidebars out there (e.g. - Konfabulator, Apple's Dashboard, Google Desktop, etc.).

I used Google Desktop's sidebar briefly, but without a widescreen it took up too much real estate. I can't imagine using one unless you had a widescreen monitor, or ran at 1600x1200 (or higher).

1.
 
Vista 5308
Feb 23, 2006, 11:21
1.
Vista 5308 Feb 23, 2006, 11:21
Feb 23, 2006, 11:21
 

So far, everything I see about Vista has me scratching my head and wondering, "why do I need that, again?"

Take this miracle of window transparency that they'll no-doubt want me to go out and buy a DX10 class video card in order to witness... why exactly do people want their windows going transparent, Microsoft?

Remind me, because whenever I see screenshots of the effect, I am stricken by what an amazingly illegible mush of poor UI design results from the various bits of icons and text blending into one another in the transparent areas.. what increase in the OS's usability is realised by this feature? What's it for? What can I do to my desktop now that I can see the horrid picture bleeding through my taskbar?

..'cause if it's meant to help me task-switch more efficiently or something, they should have just gone all-out with looting the good bits from OSX and ported over Exposé.

And while I'm at it, WTF is that sidebar monstrosity? Looks like the retarded step-child of Dock meets Dashboard. Blech.

-----
GW: Tashen Boke [R/Me]; Rosti The Ninja [Mo/R]; Gort Grimley [W/Ne]
-----
I'm not even angry. I'm being so sincere right now, even though you broke my heart and killed me.
13 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older