|
I like the glass (yeah, it's shiny, so what?).
I like the improved security. UAC really doesn't get in my way after I install all the software I need for daily use (which only takes a day). I don't agree with the people who are declaring jihad on UAC.
I like the little improvements like the search field in the Start menu, and finally being able to click Hibernate on a laptop and actually have it hibernate.
I don't like Explorer in beta 2. Hopefully it was fixed up (especially the keyboard navigation) in the final build.
But the bottom line is, one of my products is hugely impacted by UAC and IE protected mode. Meaning, it doesn't even work in some cases. It would literally cost me sales if I didn't use Vista. So I'm using it, and hoping that my competition isn't. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
I consider Vista to be an interesting release.
Regardless of what we (developers) think of the OS features and look and feel, we aren't the people who will buy the product en-masse - that honour (or otherwise, if you prefer) falls to the so called "average consumer".
Average consumer doesn't care about the fine details of whether XP is "good enough" (and let's face it, it is - as was Win2k before it). They are the people who actually buy things because of glossy adverts, or because it looks "new and flashy" in the store.
More importantly, they are the people who don't look after their systems (most either don't know, don't care or both) and they are the people who own unprotected and unpatched systems.
In other words, they are the people who own the machines which are sending YOU spam and mounting phishing and DOS attacks at the behest of the scum who seek to defraud others.
They are the people at whom the changes to the security model in Vista are targeted. Although those changes will cause developers pain (our experience bears this out already) they have the potential to finally start to do something about the vulnerability of new consumer systems.
Although new exploits will always be discovered - and many users will ignore the resulting patches - with Vista Microsoft has raised the bar against the spammers and internet fraudsters. It will take time, but if this doesn't have an impact on the spammers I rather doubt anything will.
On that grounds above all else, I'm all for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello
i copied the zip file and i saved in my path e:/inetpub/wwwroot/simplechat.With folder name SimpleChat .But the problem is that the design page is not opening.
only the htmlview page is opening then how to know what to drag into the form from the toolbox?
give me the correct steps from first how to run and execute the application.
Thanks and with regards
sankar
sankar
|
|
|
|
|
I have used Windows Vista RC1 64-bit on my laptop and it ran really well. It was fast, responsive, reliable, and most noticeably pretty. The new Aero Glass interface looks more natural than the Windows XP themes. One thing I don't like is the start menu's programs folder.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
█▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█
█▒██████▒█▒██
█▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
|
|
|
|
|
Technological advancements and higher capabilities in hardware doesn't mean Windows should be updated to hog half of it. It means users should be able to run their software faster on it. However, Microsoft insists we should slow down the computer with Vista. I'll stick with my themeless-XP…
ROFLOLMFAO
|
|
|
|
|
Me too.
Although I'll mention that I have the Longhorn beta 1 installed on a system with only 256MB RAM and 4 of that is used for video.
I set it up with "classic" theme and it looks just like a bare XP system... with nothing else installed... and basically useless. I forget whether or not I tried running Notepad or anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Behind The Scene wrote: Technological advancements and higher capabilities in hardware doesn't mean Windows should be updated to hog half of it.
It's been like that with every iteration of Windows. Vista is no different.
|
|
|
|
|
It's really bad idea (The vista product)  I mean it's bad idea for users due to System requirements that vista needs  and for programmers cause that means a new technologies (WPF,WWF,WCF) and according to .NET3 we can find a lot of restrictions on our code (who knows) so we need to learn more and more even that we haven't learned enough about .NET2 so micro$oft decided not to support us but to drown us with it's new technologies 
|
|
|
|
|
TRy using. Your opinion will be changed. It has taken me some time to move of c++ into c#, but as I move more and more into it I am more impressed. New technologies are there for a reason, they are there to make you job easier by providing safer, more effecient ways of coding. Just think, would you prefer to be writing assembler as we did back in the 80's (and some did in the 70s!!)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. Try to see if it is useful to you. If not, you can revert to the old.
But most of the times, the new technologies better our job.
-- SrinG
|
|
|
|
|
sriggumma wrote: Yes. Try to see if it is useful to you.
Where do we download the shareware trial version?
"Try it out" would be a much more viable option if there weren't a $250 buy-in to try it, and hours/days of pain and suffering over formatting systems and re-installing software.
Grim (aka Toby) MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue IS NOT NULL
GO
(0 row(s) affected)
|
|
|
|
|
No! With Micro$oft you can never go back because
all the code is not backward compatible
See the drop of support for earlier versions to sell newer versions of Windows 1,2,3,3.1,WWG,95,98 ...
See the string of Basics for the 8080 8086
See VB 1,2,3,4,5,6 ...
See VC,VC 1,2,3,4,5 etc all with new features at the
expense of dropped support so your old code has to be rewritten.
I should have added that these come out at a rate such that your code is obsolete before you can learn the differences between the old and new versions
The same with every other language they get their hands on.
-- modified at 13:22 Thursday 16th November, 2006
Plugh Poof
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that the aggressive marketing strategy of Microsoft has put on many issues in news. But as per my concern, MS has introduced very good technologies for developers like me. It started by the advent of .NET technology. From there, as an user, net experience has been changed to a wonderful one.
Congrats to the "never die" spirit of Microsoft.
Sreekanth Muralidharan,
Corporate Systems Consultant [Embedded Systems],
INDIA
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Sreekanth Muralidharan,
You seem to have missed my point. Although your job may be easier now; when Microsoft reaches .NET 4.0, and has dropped all the features you are using, and you have to re-write all your code, you won't be so
happy.
plugh
|
|
|
|
|
The lifespan of a operating system is about a minimum of 5 years ( for Windows  ), and that also depends how stable and good the OS is, for that reason Windows 95 => 3 years, Windows 98 => 2 years, Windows 2000 => 6 years, XP (W2000 core) => 6 Years.
Windows Vista fix many things from previous OS and include a huge amount of new technologies, also it took a really good time to come out because the stability it is promise to produce, my thinking is that the minimum life span for Windows Vista is going to be at minimum 8 to 10 Years.
Statistically for the last 20 years, computer power is duplicated every 18 months, so, now Windows Vista "looks" like it requires much power, but in 2 years, any computer will be able to run Vista and I mean a $300 computer will be able to run Vista.
If you don't want to update your computer, no problem, you can keep using Windows XP/2000 or 95 even Windows 3.1 still are out there, but of course, new applications will use the new technologies from Windows Vista and they will be supported on XP for some time, probably no more than 4 years, so I think 4 years is more than enough time to jump to the Windows Vista generation.
Now for conservative people then they can move to UNIX and for sure they will be happy with the 80x25 terminal.
--
If you think the chess rules are not fair, first beat Anand, Kasparov and Karpov then you can change them.
Moral is, don't question the work of others if you don't know the reason why they did it.
|
|
|
|
|
Where in jesus' name did you come up with 2 years of lifespan for win98??? They only pulled the plugged on win98's support what...early this year ??? or last year some time?.....Win98 had a good 7 or 8 years...hell some people still use it. Win98 support stopped at the same time as WinME so you might want to do a little research before putting up no sh*tty erroneous numbers like that.
Dewm Solo - Managed C++ Developer
|
|
|
|
|
What I'm fuc** talking is how long Microsoft was coming from the previous Operation System to the next fuc** version, not when they stopped giving fuc** support. WinME doesn't have a fuc** difference at the Win32 API level than fu** Win98. It only does at the fuc** application level.
So, don't fu** reply if you don't fuc** know how what the fuc** I'm talking about.
You don't need to fuc** reply and you can go fu** yourself.
P.S.: I don't use the word fu** at all, but I think was a nice time to use it.
--
If you think the chess rules are not fair, first beat Anand, Kasparov and Karpov then you can change them.
Moral is, don't question the work of others if you don't know the reason why they did it.
|
|
|
|
|
And if you mean about the 4 year, that's more or less the time they support new technologies under old OSs and not about for how long they give support to the OSs.
If a new MS SDK make use of APIs then, if the API is already available under the old OS then they support the SDK back, else they just don't support that funcionality at all instead give to the user a patch, and I can give you a lot of MS SDKs where they don't support many funcionality because the previous OS didn't support the new API.
--
If you think the chess rules are not fair, first beat Anand, Kasparov and Karpov then you can change them.
Moral is, don't question the work of others if you don't know the reason why they did it.
|
|
|
|
|
From one OS to the other hey? Well then maybe you should fu**ing (as you so elegantly use the word) again check your fu**ing sources.....Win ME was released in '99....Win2000 in '00 and guess what ...Win XP in 2001 ...so your fu**ing 6 years for Win2000 is damn sh*t.
If you wanna talk sh*t about something make sure you know about it!
Dewm Solo - Managed C++ Developer
|
|
|
|
|
There is no compelling reason to move to Vista. It simply lacks any identifiable "must-have" features. At least XP had ClearType (and even that isn't compelling enough to move to XP)...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
...Apart from the fact that MS are discontinuing the support for XP in the near future (I read in a German IT (ct) magazine that it will be round about two years), and there will only be continued support for Customers with Premium services contracts...
If you look at the rate that patches/updates come out for XP, about 6 months after discontinuing suppport, the OS will be that unsafe to use, you will have no other option but to upgrade
regards
Phil
Who the f*** is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still using Win2K, and I bet I have fewer security concerns than most people.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Me too. Win2000 is pretty secure as long as you avoid using other MS software (IE, ActiveX, WMP, etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
If you look at the Microsoft support site and search a little bit you will find that full support for XP will last until 2009. XP users don't have nothing to worry about until SP3 or 4 is out for Vista. Which by then might be insteresting in the least. Or by then most current MS users will have moved to Linux.
I have personally been a user of windows since Windows 2.0 and a developer for almost as long....I only started looking at and using linux in the past couple of years, but Vista is all the incentive i needed for me to make the move. I will never use of develop on or for Vista. Vista has been a long time promise from MS and a story full of disappointments for would be users, and I have been completely discouraged to even look at it just from the stuff the MS said about it and the stuff they removed from it. Let alone all that was said from beta testers and the like. We were promised a new OS full of new features that would make our computers more secure, run faster, be easier to use, faster file finding, etc etc etc. We are left with a shiny version of the old stuff we already use, turned into a mess because they moved and changed everything we new and is, as far as I am concerned, only rumored by MS to be more secure and that seriously remains disputed.
Dewm Solo - Managed C++ Developer
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
