Is anyone else unimpressed with the way Vista looks so far?

[state 08]

I am pretty disappointed. I feel like they were trying to copy the elegance of Apple, but just got it all wrong.

I hate the new taskbar. Especially the start button. I've seen better 3rd party themes for XP.

But that's just my take.

 

[angrynerdrock]

i actually like it, its simple.

 

[magomago]

Use your third party themes then.

 

[stash]

Let me see you develop a UI that will be used by over half a billion people and manage to please all of them. The UI is supposed to be built to be much easier to write and use themes for in Vista, so you can go nuts.

 

[Reckoner]

Originally posted by: stash
Let me see you develop a UI that will be used by over half a billion people and manage to please all of them. The UI is supposed to be built to be much easier to write and use themes for in Vista, so you can go nuts.

nm

 

[xtknight]

I'm more interested in how it performs. I can make it look however I want with custom programs/skins/hacks/etc. Does it seem faster than XP at running programs? Does it still use Win32 PE format or is there a new Vista executable format (do the PEs run under WoW)? Are .NET applications deemed Vista native now?

I would just go and install it myself but I have lots of full partitions. I'm trying to decide whether it's worth it to try it. What about the boot loader? Can I dual-boot XP64 and Vista x64? What about the driver model? Is it backwards compatible with XP (NT 5.1) or Server 2003 (NT 5.2) or must I get strictly Vista drivers?

 

[spyordie007]

Dont get too caught up on performance yet, they have a lot of work left to do on performance between now and RTM.

 

[ProviaFan]

There are a things that I might change about the UI, but it's nothing that can't be changed with a theme. Oh, and the Flip 3D thing is cool but useless from a productivity point of view. I know Microsoft can't clone Expose lest they be accused of copying, but I hope that there are enough hooks in the APIs that a third party can give us a good use for the rightmost F-keys (or that unused app switcher button on my Logitech MX518).

Performance is acceptable but not amazing with my Geforce 6600 - hopefully that will improve upon release, but I'm prepared to buy a new graphics card if it doesn't get significantly more responsive by then.

By the way, Microsoft is to be applauded for fixing the issue with the start menu on a multi-line taskbar. In XP, the blank area under the start button is not active, requiring extra time and mouse manipulations to bring the pointer back up to the start button after throwing it down into the corner from wherever it originally was on the screen. With Vista, MS has embraced the "mile high (or deep) menu" concept, so this is no longer an issue (besides, the button itself moves down and just looks better on a vertically expanded taskbar than XP's start button did).

 

[Looney]

I love the UI. What's so Apple about it?

And i don't see the point in reinventing the wheel if there's already a good one out there. Why should they be different, just to be different? Apple has some good ideas, Linux has some good ideas, and Windows has some good ideas. They all borrow from one another, and i see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

As for the start button... do you mean you actually hate the look of it, like the round button? Or do you mean you don't like the way the start menu is laid out. I personally love the way the menu is laid out, soooooo much better than XP. If you mean the button, wtf? If that's your biggest gripe, then you obviously haven't done anything but boot up your computer and came here and whined. Or Vista is practically the perfect OS for you minus how the start button looks.

 

[Calista]

I don't think they looked to much at Apple, it's just that the hardware to deal with more complex renderings have arrived. Still, I'm not to impressed. I'm rather disappointed to say the truth. It has some nice improvements over XP and some things done in much worse ways. The layout introduced in Windows 95 feels old and clunky by now and no transparens or shadows can change that.

When Windows 95 was released the common resolution used was 800*600 and the GUI was built to fit well with that resolution. Now 1280*1024 is common and I'm sure 1400*1050 will be the normal resolution within 2-3 years even for low-end machines, laptops excluded.

This changes a lot about how a GUI should be designed and focus should be moved from 1 screen-1 window to 1 screen - multiple windows.

Windows have always used a nestled design, 3-4 levels to find one setting is not uncommon. This worked well when there were very few settings available but as more complex enviroments has evolved this has created a major drawback.

Sure, I may switch when Vista is available because it is a better system then XP. But right now I may as well switch to OS X or Linux as well, I can't imagine myself staying with Vista until 2010-2012 when the next version of Windows hopefully will be out.