Vista Devolves Further Still

[Veljo]

They've just delayed it way too long; 5 years is absolutely ridiculous. To me it looks nothing more than Windows XP with a new (semi-terrible) look and a few new pointless apps.

And yeah, it's sad to see that after 5 years all the features that were promised are vanishing one by one. I wouldn't be surprised if they called it Windows XP 2007 soon.

[davebz]

I still wonder what mayhem is going to happen after they finaly launch it. Do you think most users will be "sheep" and put up with it, or do you think us mac fans will finally help the stubborn ones switch?

[Qion]

I believe the successfulness of Vista is directly correlated with when Tiger is released. Vista will be a hit until customers are well aware of something phenomenally better, which I know is a thing to say about an unreleased OS, but we can all assume that Tiger will blow Vista out of the water.

The sheep will become tigers in my opinion.

[Tommo]

[quote=rhisiart]I'm not quite sure I agree with this in its entirety, but I do wonder what justifcation there was for purchasing Tiger as opposed to sticking with Panther.


There was no justification for purchasing Tiger, I didn't have a choice. That is my gripe. The Quicksilver G4 that was running the software failed and was not economically viable to repair and the shiny G5 that was bought as a replacement will not run anything less than 10.4.3.

I do not understand why Apple feel it necessary to release a new version of the OS so often when there is little change on the surface. Panther to Tiger was basically adding Spotlight (great) and Dashboard (not so great).

[fryke]

mikuro said: "Remember what 10.0 looked like? Panther and Tiger look sooooo much nicer than older versions. It took Aqua years to look good, and it took brushed metal even more years. So I don't think it's fair to expect Microsoft to nail it with version 1."

I don't get this, though. It's _not_ a version 1. "Vista" already has it in its name. It's all about the look. So they should get _that_ right at least. It's not as if they'd have to reinvent UI Design every time they slap a new theme on Win2K, although they _seem_ to be trying.

I must admit, I think UID wise, Apple *really* did some bad things with OS X initially, but it _did_ attract a lot of users. The lickable interface...

[symphonix]

Originally Posted by Mikuro

even I don't complain about OS X's look much anymore, but...translucent menus are still a dumb idea!)

Well, try translucent window borders, title bars and menu bar. Try a default theme with so much translucency that you can see the title bar of the window behind through the semi-visible title of the current window.

The translucency levels on the menus in 10.0 were awful, but thankfully Apple reduced them and now they're barely noticeable.

One thing Microsoft needs to learn how to do is to hire designers to work out their interfaces, instead of leaving it up to programmers.

[fryke]

I don't quite get why Apple insists on keeping the menus a little translucent, though. It's not as if you could make out what's behind a big menu, you merely see that there _is_ something back there. I'd say they could get rid of the last translucency there, as well. But yeah: Toned down Aqua is _much_ better than earlier Aqua. I recently had to work on a computer running 10.1.x, and I almost screamed at how cheap Aqua looked compared to Tiger on my MacBook...

[Qion]

I think our menu translucency is just an aesthetic thing. I enjoy it... in fact, it's a vista!