Recommended Posts

I would much rather see Microsoft focus more on the security and operational aspects of Vista, rather than hunting around for old icons.

They know exactly where they are, they choose not to do anything about them.

Not when they're saying that having a stupid dialog (that nobody even uses anymore) in a new OS is actually harming them.

If it's not used then it shouldn't even be there right? They should remove it from the OS if that was true.

:rofl: hahaha yeah, you would think they would update them after so many years!

If it's not broken, then why waste resources trying to fix it? I would much rather see Microsoft focus more on the security and operational aspects of Vista, rather than hunting around for old icons.

You would think it wouldn't be that hard for a corporation like Microsoft. Hire someone at $7 an hour to hunt for old icons and report them to the icon design person who has nothing else to do but design icons.

I was worried even when the Longhorn project started that they would be focusing too much on the 'pillars' of Longhorn and not enough on small practical additions in functionality-not necessarily things like redoing dialogs but adding small features. Apple, hopefully, showed that this type of stuff matters as much as the big picture stuff.

Anyway there are functional problems with the add fonts procedure. If you add a large group of fonts at once and a certain number already are installed or are corrupted you have to click 'OK' to each and every one.

If it's not used then it shouldn't even be there right? They should remove it from the OS if that was true.

Why is it such a big deal? It's not something you ever need to see, so who cares if it's removed or not? I really don't understand why it's such a big deal to some people.

Seriously, come on, exaggerated image wars aren't that funny. :p

Surely you can see why people want a thorough refresh of the UI to be a thorough refresh of the UI without calling them obsessed?

Not disputing that it needs some cosmetic work.. What does concern me is this endless beating that poor dead horse is getting. Does anyone really have to be reminded that this forum has no influence whatsoever in scheduling any given task in the development cycle of a microsoft OS? If he hasn't put it in MS' complaint box by now shame on him. If he has, then it's time to shush.. you've done what you can and endlessly moaning here won't change anything. It's not productive. This is for him:

serenityprayer.jpg

Why is it such a big deal? It's not something you ever need to see, so who cares if it's removed or not? I really don't understand why it's such a big deal to some people.

It may not be a problem for you, but for a LOT of others it IS a problem. It's not like we are asking them to re-do the kernel or something. It's just icons, it would probably take them less then a day to do. Why can't they assign a couple of people to do it? They just choose not to. :no:

It may not be a problem for you, but for a LOT of others it IS a problem. It's not like we are asking them to re-do the kernel or something. It's just icons, it would probably take them less then a day to do. Why can't they assign a couple of people to do it? They just choose not to. :no:

Hmm. I can't say for sure, but I suspect manpower assigned to Vista in general isn't enough to accomplish all the tasks at once. I'd guess that they are prioritizing the things that need to be done and the most important things are getting the resources while the low priority things are going to sit untouched until they get to the polishing phase of development immediately before release.

Well if they are able to write a somewhat new and beautiful blog writer, they can sure manage to replace the old write crap with a version derived from the blog writer :D, not really a big deal. For the Font dialog though, i guess there are still some DLLs here and there thate were not updated to reflect vista freshness, would be time to fix it :D

Apple, hopefully, showed that this type of stuff matters as much as the big picture stuff.

You do realise that Apple recycled a lot of icons from Mac OS 1 through to Mac OS 9.2 right?

Apple had redone the whole interface for Mac OS X because they had scrapped the whole code base from Mac OS 9.2 and started on a clean slate, and moved to a Unix-based OS. Since they had to recompile everything anyway, they had the chance to refresh everything. Unlike Microsoft who are only modifying their previous versions of Windows.

You do realise that Apple recycled a lot of icons from Mac OS 1 through to Mac OS 9.2 right?

Apple had redone the whole interface for Mac OS X because they had scrapped the whole code base from Mac OS 9.2 and started on a clean slate, and moved to a Unix-based OS. Since they had to recompile everything anyway, they had the chance to refresh everything. Unlike Microsoft who are only modifying their previous versions of Windows.

//OFF

"Apple had to redone the whole interface for Mac OS X." They couldn't access the os9 resources from the Unix gui. But let's leave out Apple from this. I wouldn't even call an OS something which boots up a virtual machine just to be backward compatible - imagine when you start Photoshop then a window comes up booting XP :x.

And about the icons: i rather watch the old icons and dialog for another 5 years instead of: using an OS where half of the shell commands unable to access the resource fork of the files, a copying entirely stops if a file can't be read (there is no skip option in 10.4), network drives unmount if you're using a bad CD to copy from, and you have to use Sherlock from os9 to find files on a CD - in 10.4 Spotlight can't find the files unless you already opened that directory where the file is in.

//ON

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.