# Vista Devolves Further Still



## Mikuro (Jun 29, 2006)

Source: http://www.macobserver.com/article/2006/06/29.13.shtml

Microsoft has announced that Vista will not include the much-ballyhooed (and legitimately interesting and forward-thinking) WinFS file system.

I shouldn't be surprised, since Microsoft's favorite hobby for the past year or two has been ripping features out of Vista. All that remains is a shriveled husk of a next-gen OS. Can someone remind me what Vista has that XP doesn't? It has a nice new facelift, and an equivalent of CoreImage (which the facelift is built around). Is that all?

If I were a Windows user, I would be soooo annoyed. Three years ago, Longhorn (now Vista) sounded like a really good, maybe even revolutionary product. It promised to take a technological leap forward similar to Apple's leap from OS 9 to X. But over the years, it's just become more and more like XP.

So...yeah. Vista's been crippled again. I urge you now to point, laugh, and generally be smug.


----------



## Qion (Jun 29, 2006)

I can't be smug with this one. That's just humiliating for them. OS X Tiger already does everything -if not more- than Vista... it's like Microsoft is saying, "Let's see just how far we can bury our image of boring repetitiveness into people's faces while still maintaining a sub-par excuse of a competitor to the Mac side of things _and_ manage to sustain a 90% market share!"


----------



## HateEternal (Jun 29, 2006)

I tried out the public beta. Without having a beefy video card there isn't much that I have found to be interesting. I prayed that even without a video card to support aero they would have _at least_ reworked the way windows were drawn in 'classic ui' mode so you wouldn't have the 'moving window acts as a giant eraser until it stops feature' but no... The new start menu is worse than the XP menu, who wants to use a scroll bar when you are going for an App? Once again they moved everything around... kind of annoying but not terrible.  The windows explorer bread-crumbs are kinda neat... thats about it. They added more built in apps so you have a better out of the box experience. I've spent maybe 2 hours with it, so I didn't get into it too far.

Oh, and after like 10 years MS paint got new icons... and I think they updated the color palatte to be more 2006ish... nice work guys.


----------



## symphonix (Jun 30, 2006)

It seems that with every new evolution of Windows, they seem to get further and further from the ideals of usability and good design. The Aero interface is an eyesore. All my PC-loving friends adore it for its eye-candy, but all it does is make things harder to read, more clutterred and awkward to use.

I'm not surprised WinFS got canned. From what I've heard it works fine for about 50% of the beta testers, the rest described it as a painfully unreliable system to use. And when a Windows *fanatic* tells you something in the OS is so bad its unusable, you'd better believe it.


----------



## ora (Jun 30, 2006)

I'd love top see  a list of the original longhorn features that showed what had been dropped over time, would be very telling.

For me the killer is still they couldn't make it in .NET, given the fuss over .NET i hear from my PC using coder friends this made me most amused.


----------



## fryke (Jun 30, 2006)

WinFS was taken out longer ago already. They were merely talking about betas of it in the final Vista version. Now they're simply calling WinFS off completely (well, putting it to SQL and software development projects).


----------



## powermac (Jun 30, 2006)

I remember when Microsoft announced the features they wanted to put into Longhorn(vista). It was an ambitious idea, that many of the experts felt was not possible in one release of the OS. Further, that the underlying technology in Windows will not be able to support all those ideas MS had at the time. I believe those experts to be right. As Vista has been developed, as we have seen, features are being taken out.

Lets face it. Apple made an ambitious move to OSX, and for good reason. MS will have to do the same thing, that is write a new OS with new technology to be flexible for future changes. 

Although I have not personally seen Vista in action, a few people I know have reported, at the present time, with this preview release, all Vista has accomplished is eye-candy features over XP.


----------



## symphonix (Jun 30, 2006)

powermac said:
			
		

> I remember when Microsoft announced the features they wanted to put into Longhorn(vista). It was an ambitious idea, that many of the experts felt was not possible in one release of the OS. Further, that the underlying technology in Windows will not be able to support all those ideas MS had at the time. I believe those experts to be right. As Vista has been developed, as we have seen, features are being taken out.
> 
> Lets face it. Apple made an ambitious move to OSX, and for good reason. MS will have to do the same thing, that is write a new OS with new technology to be flexible for future changes.
> 
> Although I have not personally seen Vista in action, a few people I know have reported, at the present time, with this preview release, all Vista has accomplished is eye-candy features over XP.



Its interesting when you think of it like that. In essence Microsoft are trying to achieve in one 7-year step what Apple have achieved in 5 operating system releases over five years. With each major release, Apple averaged about 200 bugs that were corrected on the first 10.x.1 update. These were all small, obscure bugs that simply weren't picked up in testing, such as incorrect date or address formats for a particular country, or an inability to connect to a particular version of a server.

In essence, I think Microsoft have a very similar task in front of them with Vista. I wouldn't be surprised is Service Pack 1 corrects over a thousand minor bugs that weren't picked up in testing.

The attempt to move the OS over to .Net was similar to Apple needing to move Carbon applications over to Cocoa - a process that took years and was only finished completely when QuickTime 7 was released. Microsoft found the task too hard and scrapped that migration. It was also claimed that applications re-written in .Net were much slower and more resource hungry than their original versions.

Apple certainly did make the task of a fully searchable file system with metadata look easy, but it was something that had to be setup years in advance. 10.0 was all about treating the files in a way that *could* work with a metadata system, in 10.1 metadata support was added to the resource forks, 10.2 prepared support for XML and multiple-inheritance in the file-system itself, by 10.3 they had created the APIs for metadata including unix commands for handling metadata on files (look up some of the unix commands beginning with "md" and check their history if you want), just prior to 10.4's release they updated all their other apps to write metadata when saving files, and in 10.4 it finally emerged into the operating system as "Spotlight", an actual feature that could be used.

Microsoft has tried to achieve the same task in one step, and that is why both of these plans (.Net and WinFS) have proven to be too hard for them. In the same time, the management team in charge of Windows Vista has been replaced several times.

Well, they got the eye candy done. And in the end, thats all it'll take to sell millions of units of Windows Vista.


----------



## Tommo (Jun 30, 2006)

I am currently running the latest Beta of Vista and I would say it is very different to XP in many ways. Yes it is very late, but the you have to look at this from a remote perspective concerning Microsoft and Apple.

Microsoft has a vast market share and has a reputation as a stable patform for the vast majority of the worlds software packages and to continue to syuceed the most important thing, especially in the copporate market is backwards compatability with software. I have software that has given issues with XP that runs perfectly well on Vista.

Apple on the other hand has a much smaller market share and seems not to consider backwards compatability in software at all. Don't get me wrong I think 10.4 is a great system, but within the user base that I have to provide support to we have two VERY expensive software packages, specifially designed to run on Macs that now do not work. Result the software companies have now shifted their entire development to Windows.

As a stand alone home user or in avery small company this is not an issue, but for larger coropate users it is the main reason Macs are discouraged. This is made worse by Apples need to release a new version of the oiperating system every 12 to 18 months, something I can not see as anything other than a profit making exercise. Add this to the fact that new macs are forced to use the latest version of the OS by default and cannot boot to anything else this can be a real pain.

Vista maybe late and not have all the bells and whistles promised. but at least a PC user can be sure that all his recent third party software will work and he will not be lumbered with a glorified addon to his iPod/

Rant over


----------



## Rhisiart (Jun 30, 2006)

Tommo said:
			
		

> ....this is made worse by Apples need to release a new version of the operating system every 12 to 18 months, something I can not see as anything other than a profit making exercise.


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. 



			
				Mikuro said:
			
		

> If I were a Windows user, I would be soooo annoyed. Three years ago, Longhorn (now Vista) sounded like a really good, maybe even revolutionary product. It promised to take a technological leap forward similar to Apple's leap from OS 9 to X. But over the years, it's just become more and more like XP.


Criticising Vista for not being vastly different to XP doesn't cut the mustard when you consider the few differences between Tiger and Panther.

I shall now take cover in a bunker.


----------



## sinclair_tm (Jun 30, 2006)

i'm using vista beta.  sure its buggy, like a beta, but it has potental.  all i know is i see tons of mac guys ripping it apart, but not reconizing what has been acomplished.  yes, i feel os x is a better os, but windows does something no other os does well, and that is run on almost all hardware combonations in the current market.  and be useable and somewhat stable.  also to the avrage joe smoe computer user, its all seamless.  most of the time its not until us gamers and/or geeks start messing with things that windows has issues.  windows does excalty what its desinged to do, and bill's bank account proves it true.


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 30, 2006)

symphonix said:
			
		

> The Aero interface is an eyesore. All my PC-loving friends adore it for its eye-candy, but all it does is make things harder to read, more clutterred and awkward to use.


Well, people said the exact same thing about OS X. The more crotchety among us (i.e., me ) still do! (Well, okay, even I don't complain about OS X's look much anymore, but...translucent menus are _still_ a dumb idea!)

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.



			
				rhisiart said:
			
		

> Criticising Vista for not being vastly different to XP doesn't cut the mustard when you consider the few differences between Tiger and Panther.


But Tiger didn't take umpteen years of development, and it didn't fail to deliver on 90% of its promises. If MS hadn't been overselling Vista/Longhorn for so long, then nobody would be complaining. But at this point, it's a shadow of what it was supposed to be. Originally, it wasn't supposed to be a mere evolutionary advancement, like Tiger was to Panther. It was supposed to be more like what X was to 9.

I agree that Tiger probably wasn't worth the $129 to upgrade, though. It actually still seems sort of beta-ish, like a prerelease version of Leopard...that cost money.  I still consider 10.3.8 the height of OS X. Tiger is now at .7, and it's still not even close to that level (mainly because Spotlight is ill-conceived and buggy as heck). But I digress.


Let me put it this way: as a lifelong Mac user, even _I_ was interested in Longhorn once upon a time. That says a lot. But it's certainly not true anymore.


----------



## Rhisiart (Jun 30, 2006)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> But Tiger didn't take umpteen years of development, and it didn't fail to deliver on 90% of its promises. If MS hadn't been overselling Vista/Longhorn for so long, then nobody would be complaining. But at this point, it's a shadow of what it was supposed to be. Originally, it wasn't supposed to be a mere evolutionary advancement, like Tiger was to Panther. It was supposed to be more like what X was to 9.I


I take your point. In fact it's very important for MS to come up with a something new and solid, as many Mac users frequently have to work with Windows in the work place (perhaps am I just getting older and more grumpier, but as every day passes I more and more detest XP).


----------



## powermac (Jul 1, 2006)

Tommo said:
			
		

> I am currently running the latest Beta of Vista and I would say it is very different to XP in many ways.
> 
> Great, how is it greatly different than XP, excluding the eye-candy features?
> 
> ...


----------



## markceltic (Jul 1, 2006)

Microsoft presents Vista on a Mac haha  http://www.uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/06/6883/


----------



## Qion (Jul 1, 2006)

markceltic said:
			
		

> Microsoft presents Vista on a Mac haha  http://www.uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/06/6883/



Well logically it makes sense to me. Once you stray from the irony of it, it would make sense demonstrating Windows on a piece of hardware that is stable and fast. 

However, aren't they worried that increased Macintosh marketing will lose them Windows sales once people actually use OS X?


----------



## Veljo (Jul 2, 2006)

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 (Jul 2, 2006)

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 (Jul 2, 2006)

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 (Jul 2, 2006)

rhisiart said:
			
		

> 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.
> ...


----------



## fryke (Jul 2, 2006)

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 (Jul 2, 2006)

Mikuro said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 2, 2006)

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 (Jul 2, 2006)

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


----------



## symphonix (Jul 2, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> 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 think that is exactly the point they were aiming for.


----------



## sinclair_tm (Jul 3, 2006)

i like the translucent menus, and other such things (terminal, dock, and dashboard).  i like being able to see what is in the back without having to move/close/size/minimize windows.  they are also one thing that has has sold os x to windows users i know.

now i want to figure out what other image beside my desktop and other windows that is being reflected/viewed from behind in the vista title bars.  i noticed it the other day and haven't figured it out yet.  but it has some streaks in it.


----------



## Mikuro (Jul 3, 2006)

Don't get me wrong, at this point I object to translucent menus mostly on principle.  I don't find the appearance offensive in Tiger except in rare circumstances when there are some very high-contrast areas beneath it. Today, it works well, and I even kind of like it. On today's hardware, the cost is so small that it's justifiable.

However, nothing can ever change the fact that it was a terrible idea to begin with. Something like translucent menus should only be implemented if there's no reason _not_ to, and there were many good reasons not to when Apple decided to do it, because the hardware to support it just wasn't there. Even the software to support it (Quartz Extreme) wasn't there until Jaguar. It was ridiculous to cripple the performance of something as basic and unavoidable as menus for a purpose so frivolous. It's a prime example of Apple's "style at the expense of everything else" philosophy when they made OS X. (If you want to spin it in a way more favorable to Apple, you could call it their willingness to write software that's several years ahead of its time. "To hell with the present day!")


I think Apple would have done well to have kept Aqua as we know it (with its dynamic shadows and transparency and genie effects and whatnot) under their hat until 10.2 or 10.3, and given the hardware a chance to catch up to their ideas. It would've made 10.0 and 10.1 usable (...maybe), and would've made Aqua jaw-droppingly awesome when it was unveiled. That's because an Aqua that runs well is much more impressive than an Aqua that's slow as a snail...in molasses...that's _dead_.

I've noticed that people who got onboard the X bandwagon with 10.2 or 10.3 tend to think more highly of OS X, because they didn't know it back when it _wasn't_ at all justifiable. 10.0 made an impact on how I look at OS X, and that'll always exist to a degree.

So I actually think Microsoft's timing of such an interface is much better than Apple's. They didn't get carried away like little children and try to do it years ago, before the necessary hardware was widespread. Maybe that's by no real merit of MS, but hey, results are results.

Man I talk too much.


----------



## fryke (Jul 3, 2006)

Yes you do, but it's interesting to read, so go ahead.


----------



## Rhisiart (Jul 3, 2006)

I find Mikuro pretty precise (i.e no wasted words).


----------



## sinclair_tm (Jul 3, 2006)

he has some points, i guess.  but i'd never know it from his spin.  i got on the os x bandwagon with 10.1 on my 7500 after 10.2 was out!  so it was just slow to begin with.  but it was so much more stable than 9.2.2, that i used it.  then after i got 10.2 on my 7500, i never went back to 9.2.2.  so i never really experienced the poor start of os x that everyone else seems to talk about because i started on crummy hardware to begin with, and just chalked it up to that instead of the software.  maybe i should install 10.1 on my 466/g4 just to compare how bad it really was.


----------

