Vista RTM has been faked...

[hougtimo]

Right...Vista has hit RTM, and Paul Thurrot among others, has some screenshots going. I have been a member of MSDN all the way through Longhorn/Vista's development and to be honest I really hope this product isn't finished. Here's why:

1) No Boot screen! - This in my eyes, in unacceptable for a final release.

2) These scrollbars look horribly unfinished. Sure, the fade effect of the buttons is nice...but they look well...as if they aren't there when you're not rolled over them.

3) This sidebar that can be seen in various places in explorer, in my view, is hideous. What a waste of mucky green space for 3 text links.

4) Why on earth is there a massive gap between network connections and the rest of the system tray icons? This has bugged me in several builds and they STILL haven't fixed it.

5) Help and Support = fugly

Ok, don't get me wrong here, I think Microsoft have made a big improvement over XP. Unfortunately Microsoft are well noted for having inconsistent User Interfaces. They said they were going to change this with Vista but I just don't think it is there yet, graphically. What would please me immensely is if Microsoft got a patch out before January to fix these issues, or with a service pack sometime soon.

/rant over

HougTimo

[dAbReAkA]

u made some good points, but i dont think it was faked

btw, when are u subscribers getting vista? tomorrow?

[DigeratiPrime]

correction: "Vista RTM has been rushed".

[X-Ecutioner]

MSDN Subscribers wait 1-7 days after the product has rtm'd. Frankly too long. lol

Help and Support = fugly

BAHAHAHA I love that word

[ripken204]

only 1 of your points makes any sense, and that is the boot screen.

the scrollbar is fine, the sidebar is fine, and that tray is how its suppose to be. just b/c you dont like how vista looks doesnt mean you should be spreading false news.

[cluberti]

correction: "Vista RTM has been rushed".

A year and a half late is rushed? lol

[hougtimo]

only 1 of your points makes any sense, and that is the boot screen.

the scrollbar is fine, the sidebar is fine, and that tray is how its suppose to be. just b/c you dont like how vista looks doesnt mean you should be spreading false news.

I'm not spreading fake news....Just that I think the UI in vista is terribly inconsistent and drab in some places. I DO like vista and will definately buy it, this is only intended as constructive criticism.

1) The scrollbars are horrible. The look horrible, they don't fit in with the UI, I feel a less showy design would be better for them, and also lose the fade effect. They only slow people down. I feel a nice lightish blue would have faired much better colour-wise.

2) The explorer sidebar isn't fine. There are literally three text links on it, and the amount of space they have wasted is enourmous. Wouldn't a little bar across the top of the explorer window be much better for the text links? It would certainly save space, and may look better too. I also hate the colour of the sidebar...I originally thought there would be animated Aurora artifacts there, which would have made things better...but the colours they have done it in remind me of a stagnant pond.

3) How is the tray supposed to be like that!? There is a hug gaping gap in the middle of the system tray! If the icons nearest the clock are supposed to be seperate, there should be some sort of separator clearly 'stating' which icons belong where. Right now it just looks like the system tray is floating in the middle of the taskbar.

As I said, in general I am a big fan of Vista's UI and think they have done a great job SO FAR... I (and a lot of other people I have talked to) feel that finishing touches are needed to make things look a little better.

HougTimo

[hougtimo]

Oh also - the clock is out of line with the tray icons

[ripken204]

dont use the sidebar, thats how its suppose to be.

as for the tray, MS purposly separates system icons from user icons.

as for the clock, the time itself is positioned correctly, the icons are an extra pixel up, it just looks better this way, if youve done any shell theming then you would have noticed this too.

[hougtimo]

dont use the sidebar, thats how its suppose to be.

as for the tray, MS purposly separates system icons from user icons.

as for the clock, the time itself is positioned correctly, the icons are an extra pixel up, it just looks better this way, if youve done any shell theming then you would have noticed this too.

I know the sidebar is supposed to be like that (obviously as it's hit RTM) but why? It is a waste of space and the colours are horrible...I'm sure they could have done something about that.

Yes, I like the way the clock is positioned, but having the icons a pixel higher makes things look out of line and slightly crude, it just irritates me.

And I understand microsoft wanting to keep specific tray icons seperate from others, but they could have had a container for those icons which maybe housed them and the clock, and the others seperate rather than having a random gap between all the icons, which makes it look odd, and kinda disfunctionate.

And yeh, I've done a lot of shell theming. I'm a long time themer at wincustomize, and in my line of work I design User Interfaces (possibly why i nit-pick), but yeah...I wouldn't of let vista out like this.

[Spooky]

Why is a boot screen so important? The basic element of the boot screen is there, that little bar to the bottom. The rest of the boot screen was just a pic anyway, so why do you think the product isn't finished just because of the lack of a pic? Why don't you just add your own?

Personally I think the choice of colors for the whole thing is not to my liking but they are changeable so the color choice, other then being concerned that MS has hired some color blind people , is not a real big concern.

The scroll bars? Yep, they could have been improved some to look a little more like whats traditionally been in MS OS's, but...then again maybe a personal preference as they don't bother me because I already know they can be changed by plugging in a new theme of my own choice.

Oh, yeah, BTW...those pics from Thurrot and others? Mine don't look anywhere like that, all mine are nice, neat, clean, and crisp looking.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Spooky

[hougtimo]

Why is a boot screen so important? The basic element of the boot screen is there, that little bar to the bottom. The rest of the boot screen was just a pic anyway, so why do you think the product isn't finished just because of the lack of a pic? Why don't you just add your own?

In a finished product I would expect something better....eve in if it was only a bit of text saying "Loading Windows vista..." or something.

BTW : Has anyone considered the posibility that Paul Thurrot had it running in a VPC, and the boot screen requires a decent graphics card or something? Maybe it is there but the VPC isnt powerfull enough in someway to power it...

[cluberti]

There is no boot screen, regardless of video card. Just a pulsing green bar.

[CoffeeFiend]

I couldn't care less about a boot screen really. I don't use a OS for the purpose of showing pretty logos as it boots. As long as it does what it has do and does it well. Personally, I'd rather they bring back the old NT style blue screen with dots as it loads (a text mode screen saying what's loading).

[jcarle]

I couldn't care less about a boot screen really. I don't use a OS for the purpose of showing pretty logos as it boots. As long as it does what it has do and does it well. Personally, I'd rather they bring back the old NT style blue screen with dots as it loads (a text mode screen saying what's loading).

XP with Linux style booting would be rad. Text whizzing by only.