Its not really that big and ugly, he's using Aero Basic, so it does have the nice glass look, also. Thatís WMP11 when its maximized. It actually gets very small and compact (smaller then WinAMP). You can even have it running in the task bar, something started with WMP10.
PS: Keaton, why is your little start menu picture...
PSS: Why cant you use the actual Aero theme Keaton? Its completely video accelerated, your processor doesnít do much of anything to keep it running, so you should be fine with it according to your Welcome screen. From looking at you screenshot, the Basic Aero theme looks like a step down from WindowsXP... Especially in Media Player...
You could just say "Windows" or "Linux" or whatever it is instead of saying PC at all, and use PC to refer to any computer.
Uh, what? What does operating system have to do with hardware? If I want to refer to PCs, I'm not going to call them "those computers that can run windows and linux and unix and bsd and [...this could go for like 50 iterations]" just to satisfy the very small minority that want to call a mac a PC and think OS=architecture.
What I ment by personal computer, I think, is the line between a chip that computes various things inside a toy or smart aircraft... and a home/business desktop/laptop computer that we use with a mouse/keyboard/monitor.
The only problem i had was graphics card incompatability which caused the graphics to hang for a several seconds before going into sleep mode. Other than that, i must say that it is very high in performance because when i wake it from sleep mode the desktop becomes ready to use in only 3 seconds. Vista WILL get better ^^
Uhh, I have no clue why the start button didn't show up in the pictures, and I actually have a very bad graphics card (16mb I think), and no gaming graphics card. For some reason my computer is rated 1 by Vista, even though I have a good proccesor and everything.
I just don't get it. So, is there a way to set it to the regular Aero or am I stuck with Aero basic until I upgrade my graphics card?
The requirements for a "5" on that performance test are insane. 2GB of RAM, 512MB graphics card memory... probably needs a DX10 card as well. But Keaton, your system is pretty crap given Vista's requirements, I'm not surprised it's got a "1".
Well, my computer cost me a grand total of $300 USD (refurbished), and it's 2 years old, so I'm not suprised it doesn't work very well with Vista. I'd have gotten a better graphics card, but I don't play 3D video games all that much, so I didn't see much of a need.
After using Vista for awhile I'm sick of it, I know it's a beta running on a bad computer, but I just don't think it'll get much better. First of all a computer that can get a 5 on the Vista performance test would probably be more expensive than an iMac. I promised I wouldn't get all "Apple Fanboy" on you people, so i'll just stop there. Furthermore, for me it runs slower than XP, and I don't think that's gonna be fixed up in the Final version. Speed isn't something you fix, you have to program speed into the software. Vista doesn't crash any less, and it seems to do a worse job recovering from application crashes. It messed up my iPod, doesn't see my headphone jack, slowed down my internet connection, and I think it messed up my backup drive. I mean, it's a beta, but I don't think they'd have time to fix it all up before the current launch date, and knowing Microsoft, they'd rather release a buggy program on time than a good program late.
I think that the average person wouldn't see much use in upgrading to Vista very soon, so only computer geeks would, and many computer geeks are Apple Fanboys. The average person would probably upgrade to Vista eventually, but not for awhile, and if Apple keeps up their ad campaign they might just buy a Mac.
I think the problem with Vista is that Microsoft refuses to dump the API's of earlier versions of Windows. They are filled with old buggy technology that seems to slow the OS down, and who really uses Win95 software anymore? I think Apple did the right thing in Mac OS 10, they dumped everything and started from scratch, creating an emulator for older Mac software. Microsoft needs to do the same thing, they cannot make future OS's faster until they do. They have backed into a corner and the only way to get out is starting over, which they refuse to use.
Now, before you all get really mad at me, I will say that Vista has great speech recognition, has a good looking interface, and has good driver support. They have addressed many problems in XP (Start menu filling up, search taking forever), but not all. There is a chance that the final version will be flawless, but for now I'm giving it a thumbs down. Now where's that XP install CD?
First of all, the majority of "geeks" out there prefer Windows over Mac. Secondly, why would you install Windows Vista OVER WindowsXP... thatís just stupid, especially when the OS is in beta testing! WindowsXP ran allot slower on my dads PC when we upgraded it from Windows98, and when we completely revamped the hard drive, and used XP (because we couldnít find the 98 disk) it ran beautifully.
As far as all the issues your having, you have to take into considering that the average PC user is going to buy a PC from a store, and almost all stores such as Best Buy, have Windows based computers, for one. Another difference is, you are suffering from many issues, because your trying to run Windows Vista on a PC that would most likely love Windows 98 something, and a computer that was made to standup to Vista's expectations, will obviously not show all the problems you are having.
Last, but not least in your post... I can obviously tell you failed to read one of my posts, telling you EXACTLY why Microsoft does not want to completely redo the entire operating system (mainly the kernel), and that is because it would COMPLETELY purge all compatibility with programs running on earlier versions of Windows, which is something that no serious computer user, would want. Mac might be ok with doing something like that, but take into consideration that the average PC user, does not feel like looking for a completely new program suite, just because all the programs they loved, are no longer compatible with the new version of Windows. With that said, Microsoft was smart not to do that, because they would lose half of there customers. One thing that did happen with Vista though, is with the improvements, all 16-bit backwards comparability was lost, even on the 32-bit edition of Windows. With all things considered however, this is not a major loss, seeing as emulators will sure to take the field of running these programs and for the most part... we all use 32-bit programs anyway. Anyway, I donít think I'll say much more from here on out, its hard to talk a fan boy out of something like this, its like trying to convince someone that GeForce is better then Radeon (which in most cases, it is) and you usually cant. No offence straight to you however, Keaton. Understand though, that being a fan boy is not something to be proud of. I would give Mac a chance, if it didnít mean that Iíd have to get used to an entirely new set of programs, which farther proves my issue with completely ruining backwards compatibility with Windows.