Anyone Tried The Vista Public Beta?


Ummmmm folks I believe vista is not actually based on XP. Just remembering something that warm fluffy posted months ago.

I`m sure TelcoLou was comparing WinXP to Win2k, Not Vista. :rolleyes:

Vista was a great program on the Amiga though, Oh well. :rolleyes:

Trooper
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ummmmm folks I believe vista is not actually based on XP. Just remembering something that warm fluffy posted months ago.
They claim it is a rewrite (and indeed, much of the backend is faster/smaller footprint) but to the casual user it looks like XP with transparency and blur effects. I don't think it's worth upgrading to in its current state.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ummmmm folks I believe vista is not actually based on XP. Just remembering something that warm fluffy posted months ago.
They claim it is a rewrite (and indeed, much of the backend is faster/smaller footprint) but to the casual user it looks like XP with transparency and blur effects. I don't think it's worth upgrading to in its current state.

In the words of a person who doesn't give a shit about new fangled graphics:

WHO GIVES A SHIT

...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't want it to fubar my existing perfectly working XP install, so I installed it under Virtual PC :)

After the hours of installation and watching it eat up over 8gb of disk space, my first impression was "Hmmm, fluffy user interface, pretty, but where's the "classic look" checkbox?". Followed by security dialogs ("Windows needs your authorisation to blah blah...") with no useful information in them - telling me a program is trying to do a "user control operation" or "file operation" is completely useless if it doesn't tell me exactly WHAT that operation is for. It doesn't even say what kind of file operation - I'd certainly be more cautious of a delete operation than a simple read for example.

So at the moment, a few nice touches, but it seems completely over the top and bloated in the "Lets make it look pretty" and "Can we make Windows any more annoying than it already is?" departments.

Wouldnt be suprised if it runs like a dog under a virtual environment. Runs reasonably quickly for me natively.

I can confirm that it installs fine as a dual-boot. Just installed my spare HHD alongside my existing ones, and installed Vista on it fine. It creates a boot menu that allows you select between (bizarrely), 'Earlier Version of Windows' or ' Microsoft Windows'.

Good to have it there to play about with. Another thing they havent done is change the startup sound yet. I'm so bored of the XP startup sound, and can't be arse to change it myself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...More beautiful and efficient than Windows will ever be.
 
Windows can be smashed in an emergency and then you can exit the building/vehicle (such as train) through the Windows previous location > Linux > slow ass old version of Ubuntu.
 
I downloaded the 32-bit version to play with at work, and I've just gone to grab the 64-bit version to see if it's any better as I 've got a AMD X2 at home, but Microsoft refuse to let me have it (You only have two attempts at the download it seems, and the download links expire after a few hours).

Typcial M$ :angry:
 
I downloaded the 32-bit version to play with at work, and I've just gone to grab the 64-bit version to see if it's any better as I 've got a AMD X2 at home, but Microsoft refuse to let me have it (You only have two attempts at the download it seems, and the download links expire after a few hours).

Typcial M$ :angry:
I have been allowed to download it as much as you want :blink: Anyway the 32 bit version would run fine on this pentium D but for two things. Onboard graphics and needs more ram.

People say XP is bloated.

Vista makes Xp look like an anorexic. No wait. Vista makes XP look like a hydrogen atom. Expecially in terms of ram usage.

Vista heated up my entire room using the pc, hot day, and nearly managed to run the aurora screen saver full speed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top