Windows Vista Gui Vs Window Xp Gui

[jibnet 0]

Hi, We have been seeing Windows Vista Screenshots and from that we can take a look at the new GUI for Windows. Its called Aero. But i believe it looks more like Linux. Dont you think so. Now the Windows GUI is no longer unique. The are back with same GUI that other Operating Systems Already have and Also just take a look at the icons. They are not good at all.Any information about Windows GUI or you views on it. Please Reply Thank You

[fffanatics 0]

WHAT! Windows Vista look still looks much less than linux as always. It still has the same tray bar and just new images that are crisper and clearer. Plus, it has features like expose for mac and transparencies, etc. Try a transformation pack out for XP currently and you will see the difference as i did when i tried a pack.

[dselley 0]

I have downloaded the Beta from Microsoft and have to say its looking pretty good now. They have worked pretty hard on the new graphics. I like the way you can set the windows to be transparent that looks cool. Some people are saying the new Windows Vista is starting to look more like Mac OSX what do you think?

[farsiscript 0]

i hate windows vista gui it take many part of ram and cpu source i have 256Mb ram How can i rum windows vista ! bill geates dont think we are dont have money !I like windows 95 GUI it very fastWindows vista gui have more effects like shadow and ... but in windows vista i think stand in office

[omego 0]

yes it as a few smiliarities but windows vista is different, i have been using it for quite some time now.

[shadowx 0]

In my opinion the vista gui in appearance kicks butt, but in the way it works, and system resources its just not worth it.

! bill geates dont think we are dont have money !

Bill gates just wants you to spend your money on computers and nothing else!! the faster he keeps moving the faster we have to move to keep up and that = ($)($) kerching!

I think if they could make the vista gui run on specs like the xp can run on it would be almost perfect even though aero is infact utterly useless it looks good from what ive seen! And i do think it looks a little like mac and a little like linux with everything being so round, mac and linux have always used rounded edges and such like everywhere, windows has been stuck in the box so to speak with square edges so now they copy linx and mac, whatever next...maybe they will have a tabbed browser like everyone else...oh wait...lol

It still looks good though

[DogEater008 0]

lol.. it doesn't look like linux.. AHAHA.. i say it looks fancy like a MAC. I'm actually running the window vista transformation pack right now. .with topdeak installed (trial version =( ). It doesn't take up alot of my resources.. The reason why, i'm guessing, that window vista take up so much resource is because..IT"S STILL A BETA VERSION.Actually.. i don't agree with the post above me.. lol. .I don't think Bill Gates will gain anything from consummer having to upgrade their computer because MICROSOFT is a SOFTWARE company, not hardware. Unless they made some secret deal with hardware companies that we don't know about.....

[SGCHS 0]

The problem with every windows release is it always needs a stronger computer to run it. While my current computer is way faster than that 386 I bought, the overall speed of doing work has not increased by much. That is my opinion so please don't flame on too much.A prime example is to find an old dos game (if you can get it to run) and see just how fast that baby is on your P4. The OS should not be the biggest resourse hog of your system.

[mtvoyagers 0]

In my opinion the vista gui in appearance kicks butt, but in the way it works, and system resources its just not worth it.


Bill gates just wants you to spend your money on computers and nothing else!! the faster he keeps moving the faster we have to move to keep up and that = ($)($) kerching!

I think if they could make the vista gui run on specs like the xp can run on it would be almost perfect even though aero is infact utterly useless it looks good from what ive seen! And i do think it looks a little like mac and a little like linux with everything being so round, mac and linux have always used rounded edges and such like everywhere, windows has been stuck in the box so to speak with square edges so now they copy linx and mac, whatever next...maybe they will have a tabbed browser like everyone else...oh wait...lol

It still looks good though

i've been using vista and i do really like it all in all... but the only problem is it dosnt realize the amount of ram I have so it has dissabled aero since i used to not have enough and now i do... but at the moment i am using XP because i downloaded the RC1, but i havn't installed it yet, i need to. Oh and sadly bill gates will be gone soon, however it may change the way microsoft does stuff, as to compete more with mac so that at least it seems better at every thing, not just productivity
Edited September 14, 2006 by mtvoyagers (see edit history)

[ROL 0]

You can also say that Vista's icons are similar to Mac OS X.and to run aero you would need a computer with good memory and graphics card. here are the requirements i found:a 1Ghz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1 gigabyte of system memorya DirectX 9 compatible graphics processor, with a Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) driver, and a minimum of 128MB of Video RAM40GB hard drive with 15gb free spaceDVD-ROM Driveaudio output and Internet accessyou would also need Radeon 9500 & GeForce FX

[darran 0]

I haven't had the chance to install the Vista Beta version on my computer because I simply do not trust it, and I am not willing to take the risk seeing as it is Microsoft's latest release. But I have seen Vista being implemented in several desktops which are being sold in shops, the effect is really nice with the transparency and glass effects. For this to happen, your computer should maintain to the standard of the market, and it is said to say that the computers from 3-4 years will have some problems running Vista smoothly because of their specifications. I have no preference between 2 versions of Windows in their GUI. It does not have any effect seeing as Windows still have so many problems. And a good and classy GUI will not cover their technical failures within their system. Nonetheless, I still prefer the Mac OS GUI, speed, performance and design all in a package; something which Windows could not deliver. What more can you ask for?

[Yacoby 0]

One of the main reason I don't like the GUI is the system requirements, I don't have a computer anywhere near being able to run that. In my opinion they should scrap the fancy GUI, and make it so it don't use quite so much VRAM.

[tydes 0]

GUI between vista and xp, i prefer xp, although there is no transparent feature, but xp have low hardware specify:)

[Yacoby 0]

I am happy with the old 95 GUI. Does what I want, and faster than the XP GUI. The Vista GUI is said to be such a resource hog that I doubt I will even bother trying to run it. (Not that my computer can run Vista anyway )I am getting annoyed that OS seem to be getting steeper and steeper in their system requirements. Sure, if I made an effort and spend a load of money keeping my computer upgraded, it would run fine. But I don't have loads of money, and and I happy with my machine at present (Apart from the fact that there are a few games I want to play but can't. But that can wait a few years).

[elrohir 0]

Let me start off by saying:

there is nothing new about the vista interface

 

Vista is basically XP with a new look. And what good does that look do? Not much, exept that it attracts customers who think that a shiny paintjob automatically makes something better. It also makes it slower.

 

I downloaded rc1 from the MS site just to see what it was like. I was reformatting a partition anyways, so I decided why the hell not. After getting a fake serial to bypass the 30 day limit (which I might as well to have wasted my time doing, I hasten to add), I installed Vista.

 

It took about 1hr 30min, and after that I had to reinstall GRUB, since this version of Windows still ignores other O/Ses. Yay!

 

Now, lets get to this "new look" thing. The Aero theme didn't work out the way it should have, and after about an hour of poking around on the web, I found out that the reason it wasn't in the list of themes was that Vista checks out your specs and denies you features that are boasted on the site based on the results. I don't have a fancy comp, no multi-million GFX card, and only 512 MB RAM.

 

But linux works fine - with compis and XGL, which do pretty much the same thing as this Aero, just without the lags. I usually have them turned off, just cause I like things simple.

 

I had expected Vista to be slow on my machine. Hell, I was in for a shock. I got the speed I would have expected WITH the Aero theme WITHOUT it. Bloody hell, they really blew that on me. I hope for the sake of all the insane Windows users out there that Vista will work on boxes with less than 4GB RAM, and that 32-bit systems won't be obselete purely because of Vista's non-existant improvements.

 

People have said that Vista looks like MAC, they have said it resembles Linux. And I have to agree.

 

I found the theme similar to MAC - all shiny and beveled, with anti-aliased fonts (at last - that actually IS an improvement!). I don't have much experience with MACs, but at a glance it could be a MAC with a retarded colour sceme and no menu.

 

As for the Linux part of that, a lot seems to have been taken from there, as well. Take the Open and Save dialogues, for example. They work the same way as the ones for Gnome, which is one of the window managers for Linux. And the best one, I think

Both use the same expandable lists of filetypes (that it, when any MS software will allow you to save in a non-proprietry format) and the favourites list works the same way as Gnome's. I think KDE has the same thing, but I'm not sure.

 

So what good does this Aero thing, which I can't use, do me? None. None at all. XGL and compis, which took me half an hour to set up, have not been developed by a capitalist company (I know Aero wasn't actually made by MS; but that's beside the point) and work just fine. So, if the only thing that's new is the look, and the look works better in other systems, why should I as a normal user use Windows Vista? I'm still waiting for someone to come up with that answer...

 

In the end, I reformatted Vista into a media partition. It's ext3.