Published on 3rd August 2005 by
Originally Posted by FredsFriendSurely if it takes external software to allow you to change anything but the basics, it isn't really customisable.
Originally Posted by <A88>Well yes it is, because the files are still open to modification, you just need a decent bit of GUI software to know what you're doing. Who knows, they might offer skins through the OS, though it's unlikely. The fact is, you can get XP to look like practically anything, which is something I'm sure the OSX fanboys will have no comeback to (well, maybe "OSX just looks perfect)...
Originally Posted by :: kna ::he can't help himself at having a little dig at Windows when the opportunity arises.
Originally Posted by TheAnimusx.org to be a threat need to pull their collective heads out of their collective arses and realise that 96.84% of users are using x.org locally, and make APIs acordingly not stupid sockets everywhere.
Originally Posted by FredsFriendAre you thinking about XFree86?
The whole reason that x.org was created was because XFree86 had their heads up their arses. There is a more open development process to x.org than there ever was for XFree86.
Originally Posted by TheAnimusthis is going way Off topic!
Originally Posted by theanimusSeriously guys, i like BT's view on a lot of reviews, but this one, is terrible.
Originally Posted by AtomicWell he is bit-tech.net's Apple fanboy...
Either he'll take offence at it (not intended) or see the intended funny side...
Originally Posted by BioSniperI also feel that for new users it'll actually be HARDER to use than the old interfaces, they have tried to make it more informative but what they have done at the same time imo is put far too much on screen and it will confuse the hell out of any new user.
Originally Posted by unluckyfriedkittenThe question is will microsoft ever finish it or are windows users still going to be stuck with an infinite procession of updates as we are at the moment?
Originally Posted by seanbleeThe user interface as you're seeing it is effectively a modded version of Windows XP's Explorer/Luna interface, it's not the final Aero interface in the slightest, so I'm not sure what the purpose of a comparative review of it is?
Originally Posted by seanbleeI'm sorry, maybe it's me, but you seem to have totally missed the point of this beta release. This is a developer-targeted beta, it's not intended for the masses because most of the Longhorn functionality is missing. The purpose of this release is so that developers can see what stage the APIs are at at present, and in some cases start developing against the finalised APIs like Avalon and Indigo.
The user interface as you're seeing it is effectively a modded version of Windows XP's Explorer/Luna interface, it's not the final Aero interface in the slightest, so I'm not sure what the purpose of a comparative review of it is?
The drive for this first release is clear. This isn't a showcase of the new features to you and I, this is the starter course for many months of development work from partners and application designers. Many of the new and exciting features which interest the users are missing from this release and there is far more emphasis on getting the under-the-bonnet revamping out there to the people writing the software for it.
You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.
11th February 2016
10th February 2016
9th February 2016
© Copyright bit-tech