Longhorn Vista Pics & Movie

[riccbhard]

Originally Posted by nixgeek

I am absolutely serious. Even now with XP (once called Whistler) I can't stand the default Luna themes. They are too bulky and too ugly. I always end up back withthe old Classic look. At least THAT was cleaner!

Mac OS X has always had a nice clean look, even with the aqua-ish details. And to be honest, some of the themes that are available to OS X from third parties look even better than the original. Even the third party themes I've seen for XP are not that great. They just don't impress me at all, and it's more of the same with Vista's themes so far.

I agree. I'm on a XP machine now.

I believe Vista (btw what kind of name is that?) is going to slow down the computer even more than XP... and that's saying something. I prefer 2000 over XP anyday, because it is the exact same OS - except it uses the windows classic look and is much faster.

EDIT: Oh and XP programs will run on 2000 too; because 2000 also has transparency and all that other XP stuff.

Ok i'm done now

[Qion]

Originally Posted by riccbhard

I agree. I'm on a XP machine now.

I believe Vista (btw what kind of name is that?) is going to slow down the computer even more than XP... and that's saying something. I prefer 2000 over XP anyday, because it is the exact same OS - except it uses the windows classic look and is much faster.

EDIT: Oh and XP programs will run on 2000 too; because 2000 also has transparency and all that other XP stuff.

Ok i'm done now

Yes, I completely agree with you. I also use Windows 2000 over XP.... In fact I can't think of a program that I needed that would run on XP but wouldn't run on 2000. (Ex. iTunes)

Vista will definitely run slower than XP. Have you checked out MS.com for speculated hardware requirments? They act like a Comodore could run it, but really the figures they are showing will eliminate any computer that isn't at least high-mid-range right now.

Scary

[riccbhard]

Originally Posted by Qion

Yes, I completely agree with you. I also use Windows 2000 over XP.... In fact I can't think of a program that I needed that would run on XP but wouldn't run on 2000. (Ex. iTunes)

Vista will definitely run slower than XP. Have you checked out MS.com for speculated hardware requirments? They act like a Comodore could run it, but really the figures they are showing will eliminate any computer that isn't at least high-mid-range right now.

Scary

EDIT: Ahem. Yes I see know; maybe for future times you should use "Example" instead of "Ex." which I usually associate with "Except".

[Perseus]

Frankly, I'm not impressed at all with Vista at the moment. So windows fade in and out...big deal. Mac OS X had been doing effects (and better than Vista) for a long time now. Looks as though Microsoft is losing the battle. It gets uglier with every release.

I totally agree. Wow, so when you clsoe a window it supposed to look cool. Yay! I am jumping for joy.

[Lt Major Burns]

they just keeping up with the times. if they didn't do that, then they'd still be seen as being 10 years behind, instead of 4.

[Qion]

Originally Posted by Lt Major Burns

they just keeping up with the times. if they didn't do that, then they'd still be seen as being 10 years behind, instead of 4.

Not to bash, but nice one

[Lt Major Burns]

well it's true. we act all smug that all our graphical things are so cool. windows does something along the same lines and it's wasted cpu, bloated and timewasting. macfans are so two-faced at times. i personally now feel that the quartz things on my tiger are behind the times now. leopard better have some bloody groundbreaking stuff.

[powermac]

In our defense, it always appears that M$ is copying what Apple engineers have accomplished. I personally can care less if vista/longhorn does. My reason is the interface is ugly, and visually confusing.