Well, a slight exaggeration :rolleyes:
I've installed the windows Vista shell on my laptop and it looks sweeeet IMO 8) This is a complete operating system shell.

Take a look for yourself:

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/4571/vista28vl.jpg

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/4700/vista8ky.jpg

Download the shell from Here (http://en.crystalxp.net/bricopack-vista-inspirat.php).

My files/folders 'seem' to be opening quicker. Can a shell engine do this?

That shell looks grand.. I've got the longhorn one on my pc, but I'm gonna try the new one to see if it does speed up the opening like you said!

Vista is going to be teh real name for "Longhorn" - I'll still know it as Longhorn...

:) Originally posted by vidster
Well, a slight exaggeration :rolleyes:
I've installed the windows Vista shell on my laptop and it looks sweeeet IMO 8) This is a complete operating system shell.

Take a look for yourself:

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/4571/vista28vl.jpg

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/4700/vista8ky.jpg

Download the shell from Here (http://en.crystalxp.net/bricopack-vista-inspirat.php).

My files/folders 'seem' to be opening quicker. Can a shell engine do this?

Originally posted by amhudson119
Vista is going to be teh real name for "Longhorn" - I'll still know it as Longhorn...

:)

I forgot to mention that amhudson119. This comes with it's own engine though. Do all skins/shells come with an engine?

I've just installed the vista pack on mine... it is so much quicker now at opening stuff up its unreal!

Cheers vidster mate :)

I like the scroller on the desktop and the whole shell is just so clean and fresh- it really is wonderful

Originally posted by vidster
I forgot to mention that Alex. This comes with it's own engine though. Do all skins/shells come with an engine?

I think so, as it's virtually a whole O/S anyway.

I won't install it on this, as dad'll get confused.

O/T: We were hunting for houses, on Rightmove, and I asked if he'd seen any appropriate, and matching our criteria, and he said: "no, I can't get Nero to work"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:loopy: Silly old s--!

Originally posted by amhudson119
I think so, as it's virtually a whole O/S anyway.

I won't install it on this, as dad'll get confused.

O/T: We were hunting for houses, on Rightmove, and I asked if he'd seen any appropriate, and matching our criteria, and he said: "no, I can't get Nero to work"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:loopy: Silly old s--!

LOL! Awww bless!! Thats a good one that though.

Originally posted by ANGELUS
I've just installed the vista pack on mine... it is so much quicker now at opening stuff up its unreal!

Cheers vidster mate :)

I like the scroller on the desktop and the whole shell is just so clean and fresh- it really is wonderful
I'm glad you like it ANGELUS :wink:
I thought i was going crazy blasting through all my folders quicker. I'd like to hear other people's opinions though.

Originally posted by amhudson119
I think so, as it's virtually a whole O/S anyway.



27MB a whole system :confused: Throw it on.... Your going to love it!

Originally posted by MS
Beta 1 for developers and IT professionals has begun. Check this site regularly to find the most up to date information and links to other sites at Microsoft related to Windows Vista.

According to MS, it's only at BETA stage, hence why it is only 27MB - evidently, loads of it is missing - obiously the interface side of it is there - as we can see from the screenshot - I think the more indepth stuff - like the plug & play stuff must be missing , those little bits that matter - at 27MB something major must be missing...

I think i confused you along the way amhudson119. Sorry :blush:

This was never supposed to be an operating system. It is only a 'skin' for your existing operating system. We are never going to get any of the Windows Vista benefits, just the look of Vista :wink:

Looks like KDE to me. Seems they're getting the right idea then. :wink:

Originally posted by vidster
I think i confused you along the way amhudson119. Sorry :blush:

This was never supposed to be an operating system. It is only a 'skin' for your existing operating system. We are never going to get any of the Windows Vista benefits, just the look of Vista :wink:

Although people do claim to have BETA versions of the OS around - I was trying to find a source to back this up, but can't - as DS' archiving system clearly isn't working - I Googled site: forum.d*********spy.co.uk "Longhorn BETA", but they won't appear.

A member claimed he was a tester of Longhorn's BETA.


Although this ("The company has said publicly that Beta 1 of Longhorn would arrive by the end of 2005, ") clearly shows that the os beta isn't available.

I wish MS would go open source like Linux distros - :D

Who knew Microsoft could be so sexy! Great thread

Nice one

I have a full copy of Vista through my MSDN (That I dont pay for, or have ever used :S, They just send me stuff, Bonus). The GUI is pretty flashy, which I dont like, I prefer my plain and simple approach to desktops (I use fluxbox on BSD), but its a great improvement on XP for user friendlyness.

Joel

If i install this as it looks groovy, can i uninstall it when im bored? and anymore news on if it actually speeds up windows, is it true?

is that the (much maligned) Mac OSX dock on the right?

Originally posted by Craigy
If i install this as it looks groovy, can i uninstall it when im bored? and anymore news on if it actually speeds up windows, is it true?

It comes with it's own uninstaller Craigy 8) It seems noticebly faster to me. I posted it on another two forums and still waiting for feedback on the speed.

Do you Save or Run....daft question but never installed one of things 'shells' before!

Thanks

:)

If i'm using IE i always choose Run :)

Cheers :thumbsup:

huh.... i think it is faster, but i dont know for sure. looks cool neways :clap:

I have a friend who has a development copy of Vista and he says it's very nice thus far, even though it is still at beta stage.

It's yet to be streamlined and tweaked, but when it;s evenutally iut, it's expected to run fine using a "recent" cpu and 512mb DDR.

When I get to five links, ill show you the discussion.

And I prefer longhorn too :)

I'm reliably informed that the 2nd BETA version of Vista is coming out soon 8)

I hate Beta stuff, always full of nasty orrible bugs that knacker me PC up! :rant:

I won't be downloading this.

I know I am a bit thick on this subject but when I went to install this I noticed it installs 3rd party software, all 5 of them.

what is 3rd party software ?

It tried to install : icolorfolder, uberlcon, yzshadow, yztoolbar, objectdock

Are these safe ?, pwease be kind, I dunno wot it means :blush:

Originally posted by peter41
I know I am a bit thick on this subject but when I went to install this I noticed it installs 3rd party software, all 5 of them.

what is 3rd party software ?

It tried to install : icolorfolder, uberlcon, yzshadow, yztoolbar, objectdock

Are these safe ?, pwease be kind, I dunno wot it means :blush:

Third party software is stuff that isn't officially made by, but is endorsed by Microsoft themselves.. Most games for example are made by third party companies, such as the majority of the Xbox's back catalogue for example, only a select few games are in-house Microsoft products, such as the Halo series and the Oddworld games.

Hope that explains it :)

Oh it does, fanxs Rich :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Lurch
Looks like KDE to me. Seems they're getting the right idea then. :wink:

Lol. I was thinking that - it's the bar on the right.

I'm a Gnome man myself though.

I've got Vista beta 1 here but I haven't been bothered to install it yet.

Excuse my ignorance but what's so special about Windows Vista

Originally posted by wendygs
Excuse my ignorance but what's so special about Windows Vista

It's the latest version of Windows, and everyone wants it.. Except me, I never partake in beta versions of software cos they're too buggy and are prone to knackering me PC up..

I may or may not invest in Windows Vista when it comes out properly and has proper software support for stuff like hardware drivers etc, which even XP still has issues with to this day :loopy: :rant:

Originally posted by Rich
I may or may not invest in Windows Vista when it comes out properly and has proper software support for stuff like hardware drivers etc, which even XP still has issues with to this day :loopy: :rant:

Yes, I believe Windows XP did drop support for ISA based devices in favour of PCI, so you really should upgrade your 486 now Rich :nono:

Originally posted by Rich
It's the latest version of Windows, and everyone wants it.. Except me, I never partake in beta versions of software cos they're too buggy and are prone to knackering me PC up..

I may or may not invest in Windows Vista when it comes out properly and has proper software support for stuff like hardware drivers etc, which even XP still has issues with to this day :loopy: :rant:

Thanks for clarifying. I dont either as a matter of policy, procedure and practice after 8 years pure total, unadulterated purgatory with Windows 97 plus Office Pro 97. Never known anything like it. The PC was sheer living hell. XP seems somewhat more stable but still gives me many moments I'd rather forget.

Originally posted by vidster
Well, a slight exaggeration :rolleyes:
I've installed the windows Vista shell on my laptop and it looks sweeeet IMO 8) This is a complete operating system shell.

Take a look for yourself:

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/4571/vista28vl.jpg

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/4700/vista8ky.jpg

Download the shell from Here (http://en.crystalxp.net/bricopack-vista-inspirat.php).

My files/folders 'seem' to be opening quicker. Can a shell engine do this?

that link isn't working any more, did any of you save the install file, and can you host it anywhere?

available here (http://bricomix.free.fr/download.php/VistaInspirat/)

Originally posted by Abdul
Yes, I believe Windows XP did drop support for ISA based devices in favour of PCI, so you really should upgrade your 486 now Rich :nono:

Um, I have a 3 Gig AMD Athlon, NOT a 486.. Last time I owned a 486 was 10 years ago..

Do you see? :loopy:

Originally posted by Cyclone
available here (http://bricomix.free.fr/download.php/VistaInspirat/)
Thanks Cyclone :thumbsup:
I just uninstalled it while trying to solve a problem.

*Goes to download again*

Originally posted by Rich
Um, I have a 3 Gig AMD Athlon, NOT a 486.. Last time I owned a 486 was 10 years ago..

Do you see? :loopy: ]

AMD dont make a 3gig chip yet ;)

Joel

Originally posted by Joelc
]

AMD dont make a 3gig chip yet ;)

Joel

Isn't This (http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=45838&C=Froogle&U=45838&T=37379) a 3GB Athlon? :?

Originally posted by vidster
Isn't This (http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=45838&C=Froogle&U=45838&T=37379) a 3GB Athlon? :?

No, it runs at 2Ghz. The 3000 is to represent the equivalent of what it performs at according to AMD compared with Pentium, i.e. their 3000 processor may only run at 2Ghz but does more computing per revolution so is equivalent to a Pentium 3Ghz.

But it is what is widely advertised and considered a 3GB Athlon though isn't it?

Originally posted by vidster
But it is what is widely advertised and considered a 3GB Athlon though isn't it?

No, it's not advertised as a 3GHz (gigahertz) because that would breach the Trade Descriptions act. An Athlon 3000 runs at 2Ghz (unless you clock it) but, like I said, the 3000 is used because AMD claim it is equivalent to a Pentium 3GHz.

Originally posted by vidster
But it is what is widely advertised and considered a 3GB Athlon though isn't it?

You can't really compare AMD with Intel - I presume from the jist of this, that this is what is trying to be achieved - it's like comparing a Volvo with a Rover Metro.

A 1.1 Rover Metro will be considerably different to a 2.0 Vovlo v50.

Intel's do what they say on the tin - if it claims to be a 2.6GHz then it will be.

However an AMD CPU may be 2600 - it won't necasarily run at 2.6GHz. Infact a 2.6GHz (AMD-based CPU) will be closer to 3.1GHz in Intel's terms.

:)

Originally posted by vidster
Isn't This (http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=45838&C=Froogle&U=45838&T=37379) a 3GB Athlon? :?

GigaByte - :confused:

Originally posted by amhudson119
You can't really compare AMD with Intel - I presume from the jist of this, that this is what is trying to be achieved - it's like comparing a Volvo with a Rover Metro.

A 1.1 Rover Metro will be considerably different to a 2.0 Vovlo v50.

Intel's do what they say on the tin - if it claims to be a 2.6GHz then it will be.

However an AMD CPU may be 2600 - it won't necasarily run at 2.6GHz. Infact a 2.6GHz (AMD-based CPU) will be closer to 3.1GHz in Intel's terms.

:)

Infact to reinforce my point again, AMD 'numbers' will be lower than Intel's equivelant.

Then you have things like cores etc, but that's for another day.

Imagine AMD is a 'Volvo', Athlon/Duron/Sempron is the 'V50', and the 'core' - whether it be Newcastle or whatever, is the 'SX' the specific series within the range.

Like a Volvo, you can put more 'shove' into the CPU by overclocking it, but be sure to have plenty of fans, or you'll wreck a couple of hundred pounds on that shiny CPU.

This is simlar to my Volvo analogy - you take it back to Volvo, and ask for a bigger engine, they do so, but realise that better brakes will be needed to compensate for that extra shove in the engine, see?

:)

Originally posted by Abdul
Yes, I believe Windows XP did drop support for ISA based devices in favour of PCI, so you really should upgrade your 486 now Rich :nono:

I remember buying ISA cards for things... :P

PCI, we're now on PCI Express, and out with DD-RAM, and in with DD2-RAM...

Erm, thanks for that Alex - clear as mud now. ;)

To clarify, confused users should read this page http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/SellAMDProducts/0,,30_177_3532_3839^4578^4593,00.html

This analogy is probably the best -
"Two children are playing on a beach, filling up a plastic pail with sand. The first child uses a teaspoon to scoop sand into the pail. The second child uses a much larger toy shovel, moving a great deal more sand with each scoop and working more efficiently.

The same concept also applies to processor performance. A computer with a processor that does more work per cycle, like an AMD Athlon processor, can out perform the same computer with a less efficient processor. "


Basically, while an Athlon 3000 may only do 2 billion cycles per second (2Ghz) and it's Pentium 3Ghz rival does 3 billion cycles per second, the Athlon is doing more work (computing) per cycle so is more efficient. Therefore they name it 3000 to denote that it's overall performance (not speed) is equivalent to 3Ghz.

Originally posted by t020
Erm, thanks for that Alex - clear as mud now. ;)

To clarify, confused users should read this page http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/SellAMDProducts/0,,30_177_3532_3839^4578^4593,00.html

This analogy is probably the best -
"Two children are playing on a beach, filling up a plastic pail with sand. The first child uses a teaspoon to scoop sand into the pail. The second child uses a much larger toy shovel, moving a great deal more sand with each scoop and working more efficiently.

The same concept also applies to processor performance. A computer with a processor that does more work per cycle, like an AMD Athlon processor, can out perform the same computer with a less efficient processor. "


Basically, while an Athlon 3000 may only do 2 billion cycles per second (2Ghz) and it's Pentium 3Ghz rival does 3 billion cycles per second, the Athlon is doing more work (computing) per cycle so is more efficient. Therefore they name it 3000 to denote that it's overall performance (not speed) is equivalent to 3Ghz.

Yes, that's right.

:hihi: Edit, what edit was that? :heyhey:

:)

Originally posted by wendygs
Excuse my ignorance but what's so special about Windows Vista


It's supposed to provide better hardware and general resource handling, and much much more.

But chance is, most people will leave it the hell alone until a service pack or two have been realeased.

One of my forum friends from the US have commented and posted a few screen shots here (http://boltoncomputers.proboards7.com/index.cgi?board=os&action=display&thread=1124547222)

It looks like Mac OSX. Hmm can you switch it to windows 2000 metrics?

That I dont know. Ill ask sk8r and let you know!

Originally posted by t020
No, it's not advertised as a 3GHz (gigahertz) because that would breach the Trade Descriptions act. An Athlon 3000 runs at 2Ghz (unless you clock it) but, like I said, the 3000 is used because AMD claim it is equivalent to a Pentium 3GHz.

The actual truth is the rating is measured against the original "Thunderbird" Athlons, they were used as the benchmark. AMD chips are far mor efficiant than P4's due to the shorter piplines, and the shorter buffer timimg. This is why AMD chips tend to run much hotter. Things in the chip market will get very interesting very soon, especally now Intel have taken AMD's line of thinking, instead of pushing the clock speed, improve the chip, Dual Core, x84-64, Increased Cache on board, Virtualisation, all these technologys will push the chip forward, without uping the clock speed, which imo is sensible, especally as they have the power to break the limit of silicon in the next few years.

Oh, anyone running OS X 86 yet? Looks funky

*joel strokes vmware

Joel

Just installed it - didn't like it and took it off after 2 mins :)

Made Firefox look terrible.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Just installed it - didn't like it and took it off after 2 mins :)

Made Firefox look terrible.


LOL !!!

It will ! Mozilla won't develop FF based on beta, we'll just have to wait for that :)

I'm on about the skin not the Vista beta - I'm not putting an M$ OS beta on my machine :)

Originally posted by fnkysknky
I'm on about the skin not the Vista beta - I'm not putting an M$ OS beta on my machine :)

That would be a terrible risk placing a whole BETA O/S on a PC...

Originally posted by amhudson119
That would be a terrible risk placing a whole BETA O/S on a PC...

Depends what you've got on the machine and it doesn't tend to be that much of a risk - more of an annoyance when you realise there's a lack of drivers etc. I ran the beta of XP for ages with no major problems.

If no one would install a beta OS then you'd never get it tested and released.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Depends what you've got on the machine and it doesn't tend to be that much of a risk - more of an annoyance when you realise there's a lack of drivers etc. I ran the beta of XP for ages with no major problems.

If no one would install a beta OS then you'd never get it tested and released.

I am more than happy to leave the entire risk of beta-testing to you and others like you. I consider that I have borne more than enough losses as a direct result of the nefarious practices of a former IT supplier who was claimed to have hardloaded a dodgy operating system on to a computer I may to have acquired through no wish of mine.

Originally posted by amhudson119
That would be a terrible risk placing a whole BETA O/S on a PC...

less of a risk than part of it.

Originally posted by fnkysknky

If no one would install a beta OS then you'd never get it tested and released.

This is true.

I was actually very surprised at Vista, On the generic box that i threw together, it picked up most of the hardware, and anything it dident, XP drivers worked without a fuss. I now have it sat running on VMware with FreeBSD (My desktop) as a host machine, and touch wood, so far its not had any problems.

Joel

Originally posted by kentboy119
I remember buying ISA cards for things...


Until last week, we were still using an old ISA NIC:o.