Windows Media Player 11 screenshot
 

Link to the screenshot of WMP11 which will be bundled with Windows Vista...

http://blog.seanalexander.com/images...ayer_Vista.png

Seen it.

I do really like the blurry glass effect of window backgrounds in the Vista screenshots, though.

Is that 3D rendered, though?

I think it's simple alpha transparency.

It's not blurred either.

That's what I thought. It was the blur I really wanted anyway — and alpha transparency isn't really the same.

Quite a neat imitation though, given the limitations.

Well...is cute alright..but mostly I want to play music and videos... I'll just stick with :winamp: :up: :)

I actually have seperate music and video players, I kinda find that the differences are too much to combine them in a way I like (in particular I always listen to music in the background and I never watch videos in the background).

Seen it, I'm actually remaking it as a winamp skin :blah:

*puts on anti-sue suit*

Vista looks more and more loke OSX with every screenshot I see.

What the hell is the minimum RAM requirement for that fucking thing, anyway? 512 megs?

I think I'll stick with XP...

512MB could be about right - as gpu ram that is

It does look pretty good, no?

Vista may actually look good. That would be basically a first for Microsoft.

Looks slightly bloated. As in, I'm not spending £3k on a new PC for a glass effect.

Why is it when macs come out with a prettier gui it's called "innovation" and when microsoft does the same thing it's called "Bloat"?

Just use dos if you're that unhappy.

"Dude, check this out for XP!"
"It's blue. It's just a blue blob, in Photoshop."
"Nono... now check... this!"
"It's a gradient."
"YEAH MAN!"
"Is... is that a joint?"

Vista looks really cool. I'll be quite upset if MS fuck it up, I actually have my hopes up. I don't know if I want to wait until they put in some of the delayed features (WinFS in particular) though.

If Microsoft makes Vista in such a way that all the performance hogging features are deselectable (like XP and most previous versions of Windows), then it shouldn't be so bad. I'd actually turn off all the animation effects, the 'show content while dragging' thing, the fade effects, and most of the other eye candy and leave the alpha transparency on. Of course, I'd customize the color scheme, too. ;) And this is concerning Windows Vista... I still don't care for WMP, and probably never will.

But yeah, Vista is looking better than the default XP theme. At least Vista doesn't look like it was designed by Fisher Price or Playskool. :P

Other than the fact that they did it first? Given the past that Windows has, a lot of people see many things in it as bloat.

I just don't like the fact that I have to basically build another computer just to run it all.

Anyone know if Vista will include the Classic Windows Theme that was included with Windows XP? I know Windows 95 is ancient, but I still like the basic style and simpleness... and the minimal use of system resources. ;)

if not, you can be sure someone will make a theme :p

It's likely that it will require a 3D card, so I'm not sure how much less resources the "traditional" theme will use.

Yes, the eyecandy is all supposed to be hardware-accelerated.

Vista will come with three themes/styles/whatever:

-the one from the screenshot
-same but without transparency (and maybe some other effects)
-'classic-like'

Windows 95 - What? It wont run well on my 386 with 4mb of ram?

Windows 98 - Jeez, by the time it's installed it takes up 90mb of hdd space!

Windows 2000 - Why does it need more than 32mb of ram? It looks the same as 98!

Windows XP - A P3 and 128mb of ram just to run it properly? What a bloated piece of crap.

They're just a few of the thing's i've heard around the time of release of a new version of windows over the years.

Most people will have a new pc by the time vista's released and has been publicly bug tested anyway.

I'm wondering how hackable Vista is. Windows XP protected its system files from being played around with to some extent, I wonder if they'll increase that level and be more annoying.

Vista has a new security infrastructure that looks really neat.

I really hope they break backwards compatibility to some degree. It's been holding them back in terms of security for a while.

I guess that means another 2 years before I will commit to it...

:blah:

Meh, take the plunge, what could go wrong?*

*Warning: things that could go wrong include all your software not working, brain tumors, and everything. IANAL.

Can't be worse than Linux on the desktop. Because, like, Windows is already better (in many respects).

Don't hurt me.

No doubt. Actually, I'd love to see a Vista theme that looks like Windows 3.11 For Workgroups. That would be awesome. :D


:igor:

Does that mean that motherboards with onboard video will actually be nonexistant? Either way, when I build my next computer, I'm probably going to get a Crossfire board (or whatever ATI's equivalent is at the time) and hook four LCDs to it. :D

Maybe because the minimum guidelines for the complete vista experience, with the OSX like graphical flare, are.

CPU: 2.4GHZ
Ram: 512MB (min)
Video: DX9 Videocard with 128MB Ram

While the minimum OSX requirements with that similar flare are.

CPU: 266Mhz G3 (min)
Ram: 256MB (min)
Video: on board video will suffice.

Then again maybe Vista will finally surpass OS X in desktop ascetics... but is it worth it. Unfortunately when Microsoft transitions to a new hungrier OS a lot of software and hardware support transitions with it. So if you want to use the latest and greatest you have to sacrifice many a cycle and byte in to the great omnisofts latest os offering.


Lots of info on Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Longhorn

Hell, instead of making it LOOK better I'd prefer if the concentrated on making it RUN better. They can take their slightly enhanced graphical crap and shove it if three weeks after I install it I am installing hotfixes and patches. Pretty much all MS has done since Windows 98 was patch bugs and change the look of the interface a little each time.

To me that's useless and not worth my time. My XP runs fine after I've patched the living hell out of it and until the first 200 or so vunerabilities are discovered I'm not wasting my time with it.

Only one of those specifications is relevant to the "flare", and their onboard graphics cards are all OGL compliant. It's easy to make onboard sufficient when you control the hardware platform :).

Reportedly, they have. Of course, you can't really see this from screenshots, so I guess we'll just have to wait.

I can still remember the state that Apple (who are admittedly a company notorious for releasing stuff before it's ready) released OSX in, so anything servicable will be nice to see.

Nonsense. 9x and NT aren't even the same platform.