Personal Vista Review

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 126
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,540member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lfe2211 View Post


    Your reply gives new meaning to the word obtuse.



    Actually...no.
  • Reply 102 of 126
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lfe2211 View Post


    Check out this website for images of the new Mac Word 2008



    http://www.eweek.com/slideshow/0,120...=198271,00.asp



    It shows off the "Ribbon" interface called Elements Gallery on the Mac. Seriously slick and functional. Based on my continuing testing with Office 2007 Word and Excel, this App is going to be a big winner on the Mac. I don;t want to give $$$ to MS but the productivity improvement with the ribbon is off the charts. Check out the images and see for yourself.



    The old paradigm for these types of programs was Menus,Menus,Menus plus Tool Bars, Tool Bars,Tool Bars at the top of the screen. Your task was to be an archeologist to dig thru the menus to find what you wanted if you knew what you wanted.



    The new Ribbon paradigm is this--Each Tab is context sensitive. If your in the Cover Page tab for example, only the tool icons you need for this function are displayed in the ribbon. A floating format pallette contains format tools (slightly different design than in Wintel Office 2007) displays all the time. Ditto for Header, Footer, etc. You'll see icons for functions in that Tab that you never knew existed! Also, the Ribbon never expands vertically so you always have the same screen real estate. It pains me to say this but MS has really taken this kind of software a giant step forward. In my own testing, I can't believe how much easier it is to do things that were previuosly painful.



    Like I mentioned if YOU think it's cool or maybe you really love the interface doesn't mean EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THIS WORLD will like it. I know at least 20 people who hates it so whatever your reason of me and those other 20 people is an "archeologist" because we like the old office interface then so be it. I do not care...i'll just revert back to Office 2003/2004 and you can upgrade to Office 2007/2008
  • Reply 103 of 126
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,717member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    I love this operating system.



    I am still learning the ins and outs, but I have been on it pretty solid for about 3 days, and it's beautiful.



    The interface is extremely snappy and attractive on my 6600GT. It really takes advantage of my 1.25GB of RAM. Every single program (aside from iTunes) that I use on a regular basis is running better under Vista than it did under XP.



    The security pop-ups are not nearly as irritating as I thought they would be, as they are very easy to get past and never require a password (that I have seen). They let me know that Windows is being cautious about security, which is such a welcome feeling that I am glad to click a few extra "OK" buttons every so often.



    The default UI is attractive and professional. I liked XP, but the UI has too goofy, loud, and in-your-face. Aero is classy and slick.



    The improvements to Explorer are noticeable, and it adds functionality to the best default file viewer on a major OS platform (in my opinion).



    I have noticed that it is more stable than XP, which by SP2 had already evolved into a very stable operating system.



    The per-application volume leveling is fantastic and I have already taken advantage of it.



    The system-wide search is fantastic, especially for launching obscure tools and utilities.



    I am really happy with this OS. Nice job by Microsoft.



    Dear Groverat



    I am someone who has detested Windows operating systems, perhaps for having been obliged to use 3.1 professionally long ago and others occasionally more recently. However, your experiences and conclusions are encouraging. Microsoft should be able to get at least some aspects of it just right and other some others better perhaps. Everyone to whom I speak who follows the Mac closely is hanging out for 'the new' Finder. Leopard will surely address this issue. In fact, I suspect that our next OS will address this matter admirably.



    Also, with the ability of new Macs to run Windows and the likely temptation at some time to load one of the operating systems, the better that Vista is, the better our own experiences will be. Some software it seems will never be ported to or written for, the Mac. I for one would like as few surprises as possible when delving into the darkness!



    I don't like MS's business model though with restrictions on which version can be run under virtualization but I guess that is simply a result of their business approach. Those who want to run Vista on a Mac will be more enthusiastic generally and prepared to pay more! I guess that MS has a huge investment to recover.



    Thanks for your analysis. Roll on octo core Mac Pros!
  • Reply 104 of 126
    lfe2211lfe2211 Posts: 507member
    Many folks in Mac-land know super Mac advocate David Pogue, the NY Times Technology editor and co-author of many of the "Missing Manual" series of books. For example, "Switching to the Mac" is one of many excellent texts from that series. Here is David's very balanced review of MS Office 2007 entitled "Purging Bloat to Fashion Sleek Software". It describes well the pros and cons of the new MS Office suite of programs. For Mac folk, it's a preview of what's to come in MS Word and Excel 2008. Take note: David bleeds Mac blue (or is it black?).



    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/te...&ex=1174449600
  • Reply 105 of 126
    amoryaamorya Posts: 1,103member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    Explorer?s list view:



    (shrunk to 600pxl wide)







    Doesn't look that different to me
  • Reply 106 of 126
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Amorya View Post






    Doesn't look that different to me





    The one biggie is the navigation bar.
  • Reply 107 of 126
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Also, no navigable file system view on the left. Big ommissions.



    I hope Leopard's Finder turns out to be better. I wouldn't mind buying an octocore Mac.
  • Reply 108 of 126
    cuencapcuencap Posts: 99member
    I've used vista for about 3 hours at work today. Of those three hours, I spent 2.5 of them using word/excel. Let me tell you - for "updating" their own software, Microsoft has managed to make both applications harder to use. Nothing about them is as intuitive as the floating menu that the mac version has. The toggle menus are horribly hard to find what you are looking for and nothing makes sense. It also still uses the damn auto-formatting that I absolutely hate. If I want to indent a sentence, I will - it doesn't mean to change the entire file!!!



    The gadgets are nice, but are hard to bring to the front. Nothing like the mac at all - with the touch of one button. The tiled windows are gross, btw - Nothing will ever come close to expose!



    I highly admire Mac OS X even more so now than I did before. Another tough thing with Vista is, its highly unfinished. They need more patches than anything I've seen before. half of the applications at work don't even work correctly (AutoCAD Lite among a few others)



    Can't wait for Leopard...!
  • Reply 109 of 126
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    Also, no navigable file system view on the left. Big ommissions.



    I hope Leopard's Finder turns out to be better. I wouldn't mind buying an octocore Mac.



    is all you do everyday just copy/cut and paste your files from one folder to another??
  • Reply 110 of 126
    Quote:

    Nothing about them is as intuitive as the floating menu that the mac version has.



    I agree totally, when I using my Toshiba after I've just come back from my Mac, I can never find ANYTHING!! especially when i need to use the symbols menu (which gets in the way on Windows) I find the smaller window sizes in Macs allows a lot more flexibility and a better workflow.



    My opinion on Vista: It's a really pretty new OS, and I really want to have it just to have it. But after that, it really is just like XP when I've used it on my friends' computers. It pretty, but it gives me a headache that something so SHINY is so old feeling...
  • Reply 111 of 126
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,476moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    Also, no navigable file system view on the left. Big ommissions.



    I hope Leopard's Finder turns out to be better. I wouldn't mind buying an octocore Mac.



    What about if they made the Finder like itunes but instead of the browse section up top, they used column view? The lower section could be tabbed of course. Then, if you did a spotlight search, the columns would change to file type (images - searchable via coverflow, pdfs, documents) and some other meta data based on each type.
  • Reply 112 of 126
    lfe2211lfe2211 Posts: 507member
    Terrific idea Marvin. Most people don' realize just how really powerful iTunes is as a folder , data and meatgata management system. Apple built iTunes from scratch when it wanted a way to manage every aspect of music information. There's no reason Apple can't modify the iTunes model with some tweaks into a "new Finder". As iTunes has evolved, its brilliance is often overlooked.
  • Reply 113 of 126
    chris vchris v Posts: 460member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lfe2211 View Post


    Apple built iTunes from scratch when it wanted a way to manage every aspect of music information.



    Actually, they bought SoundJam in 2000 & renamed it iTunes. It still has a better filtering/search method than anything Apple's come up with yet, including Spotlight.
  • Reply 114 of 126
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quote:

    is all you do everyday just copy/cut and paste your files from one folder to another??



    I value an organized file system, and if the OS makes it easy for me to do that, I appreciate it.



    Is all you do everyday just ask stupid questions??
  • Reply 115 of 126
    lfe2211lfe2211 Posts: 507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chris v View Post


    Actually, they bought SoundJam in 2000 & renamed it iTunes. It still has a better filtering/search method than anything Apple's come up with yet, including Spotlight.



    Thanks for the info, Chris. My info was based on a reference in a John Siracusa metadata article. How different is iTunes v7.1 from the 2001 version of SoundJam (2.5.3 the last version according to Version Tracker)? Was SoundJam able to search and retrieve metadata from the web and pop it into the correct database fields? Or did Apple add that? Did it also have video display/control capabilities or was it just for MP3s? Just curious. Thanks.
  • Reply 116 of 126
    chris vchris v Posts: 460member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lfe2211 View Post


    Thanks for the info, Chris. My info was based on a reference in a John Siracusa metadata article. How different is iTunes v7.1 from the 2001 version of SoundJam (2.5.3 the last version according to Version Tracker)? Was SoundJam able to search and retrieve metadata from the web and pop it into the correct database fields? Or did Apple add that? Did it also have video display/control capabilities or was it just for MP3s? Just curious. Thanks.



    The video, ITMS & podcasting is all relatively new. I think really don't know the answer to some of those questions, as I'm not a developer. But iTunes has had the same filtering search principle, at least on the surface, since I've been using it. No idea what has/hasn't changed under the hood. I don't recall when the CDDB useage was added in, either -- it's been there long enough that I forget. It is fast though, how ever it works.
  • Reply 117 of 126
    lfe2211lfe2211 Posts: 507member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chris v View Post


    The video, ITMS & podcasting is all relatively new. I think really don't know the answer to some of those questions, as I'm not a developer. But iTunes has had the same filtering search principle, at least on the surface, since I've been using it. No idea what has/hasn't changed under the hood. I don't recall when the CDDB useage was added in, either -- it's been there long enough that I forget. It is fast though, how ever it works.





    As Paul Harvey says, here's the rest of the story. I have to thank you Chris for prodding me in to doing further research on the actual origins of Apple's iTunes application.



    It turns out that iTunes was in fact developed by Apple but not in the usual way. Here's the interesting but somewhat convoluted story of the link between iTunes and SoundJam as described in a ThinkSecret article from July,2003. It should buoy the spirits of independent Mac developers out there, most of whom are probably already very familiar with this story.



    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    WSJ: Casady & Greene "forbidden" from discussing iTunes deal



    By Nick dePlume, Publisher and Editor in Chief



    July 3, 2003 - Longtime Mac software publisher Casady & Greene closed its doors today, citing economic problems the company faced for the past three years. According to a message posted to MacInTouch, the company's plans were to file for bankruptcy protection today.



    In an interview in today's Wall Street Journal, C&G Vice President Bonnie Mitchell noted that many of the products that the company distributed are now included for free with computers or other software.



    "Examples include C&G's type fonts, a key technology as desktop publishing emerged in the 1980s; Spell Catcher, a product that catches typos in other programs that use text; and SoundJam, a digital music program that Apple bought and used as the basis for its widely used iTunes software," the Journal reported.



    "We were forbidden for two years from discussing that deal," C&G's Mitchell told the Journal, referring to iTunes and SoundJam.



    That silence didn't go unnoticed by users, leading to a great deal of speculation as to what ties existed between SoundJam and iTunes. Apple introduced iTunes at Macworld Expo/San Francisco 2001, and in May of that year, Casady & Greene announced that it was ceasing development and distribution of SoundJam "at the request of the developers." The company also confirmed that those developers were working for Apple.



    A Think Secret source provided some background on the complicated and frequently-confused chain of events: The deal that Mitchell mentions to the Journal was for Apple to obtain SoundJam's rights from C&G. Jeff Robbin, the lead developer of SoundJam and Conflict Catcher, was an operating system engineer at Apple while developing those products on the side, doing so years before SoundJam was purchased by Apple.



    For iTunes, no developers were "bought" from C&G, since the company was a marketer and distributor, and didn't employ any developers. When Apple purchased SoundJam, Jeff Robbin was already working there. (End of ThinkSecret Articlle)

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Jeff Robbin is now vice president of consumer applications at Apple Computer and lead software designer for iTunes.



    Jeff was also involved in developing the iPod, as co-lead of the initial iPod team with Tony Fadell and acted as lead developer of the initial iPod firmware.
  • Reply 118 of 126
    eboyeboy Posts: 9member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    The one biggie is the navigation bar.



    yeah, but no!



    It just appears that way, you just ctrl+click the top bar in OS X, and you can go anywhere from there, just as good as the new nav bar on Vista.
  • Reply 119 of 126
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Except that you have to know that you can "just ctrl+click the top bar", which is the least intuitive thing in the world.



    Who is going to sit down at a Mac and just figure that out? It's not like ctrl-click on other window headings does the same type of thing, it's a gimmick feature.
  • Reply 120 of 126
    eboyeboy Posts: 9member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by groverat View Post


    Except that you have to know that you can "just ctrl+click the top bar", which is the least intuitive thing in the world.



    Who is going to sit down at a Mac and just figure that out? It's not like ctrl-click on other window headings does the same type of thing, it's a gimmick feature.



    Well, you might be right, just that if you want everything "visible" basically means you do not learn anything in your intuition, end up you have (in the desktop computer case) a very clutter work space.



    Besides, you can click any top window bar with an icon next to it to perform the same function, including applications' windows.



    Add to that, you can just click and drag that icon and move that file to any directory that's visible to you, or drag it to the dock to launch a program, or even by doing so to attach the file to a email program... talk about productivity and speed... who really need a explorer type finder if you can jump through steps at any point and place of the system?



    And I had to say this is not a gimmick! As long as I know about this feature on Mac OS, it speed up my work exponentially.
Sign In or Register to comment.