Jump to content


- - - - -

Windows 7 Features Demo


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#16 m.oreilly

m.oreilly

    rog'er wilco

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,847 posts
  • Country:lower uncton

Posted 15 May 2008 - 12:20 AM

uh oh...looks like james 'x'peed off scara... :P

#17 James

James

    New Member

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Country:Malta

Posted 16 May 2008 - 09:52 PM

View Postscaramonga, on May 14 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

.NET is one of the reasons I now dislike MS! I never run it on XP and I certainly refrain from installing it when prompted. (any version)

Vista does not give me that choice, so here in lies the problem. Bloat on bloat!

The future, therefore, does not look great, far from it, it looks bleak, very, in an MS kind of way.

Lets all look forward to WinME 3, after all, we have had versions 1 & 2.
:P

I hate sweeping statements. What are you referring exactly when you say bloat on bloat ?

If there is one thing that was bloat on bloat, that was only XP. Bloat on the same 15 year old routines. Vista is trying to change all this, and that is a big challenge believe me and at the same time maintaing backward compatability. It's like version 1.0 in all senses. It's obviously not perfect, no version 1.0 ever was.

Windows presentation foundation ? At long last! Finally we don't have to rely on the same cranky code of user32.dll and GDI/GDI+ patch OS that XP was. Now if you have no idea what I'm talking about it's not my problem.....

#18 m.oreilly

m.oreilly

    rog'er wilco

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,847 posts
  • Country:lower uncton

Posted 16 May 2008 - 10:03 PM

View PostJames, on May 16 2008, 02:52 PM, said:

I hate sweeping statements. What are you referring exactly when you say bloat on bloat ?

If there is one thing that was bloat on bloat, that was only XP. Bloat on the same 15 year old routines. Vista is trying to change all this, and that is a big challenge believe me and at the same time maintaing backward compatability. It's like version 1.0 in all senses. It's obviously not perfect, no version 1.0 ever was.

Windows presentation foundation ? At long last! Finally we don't have to rely on the same cranky code of user32.dll and GDI/GDI+ patch OS that XP was. Now if you have no idea what I'm talking about it's not my problem.....
yeah, take that, mr.scaramonga :)

(give 'em hell, young man :P )

:P

#19 Guest_scaramonga_*

Guest_scaramonga_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 May 2008 - 06:50 AM

Quote

Windows presentation foundation ? At long last! Finally we don't have to rely on the same cranky code of user32.dll and GDI/GDI+ patch OS that XP was. Now if you have no idea what I'm talking about it's not my problem.....

The Windows Presentation Foundation (or WPF), formerly code-named Avalon :) is also available for installation on Windows XP SP2, should you require that amount of added bloat...........Now, I personally don't give a toss what your talking about, as that also ain't my problem.


:P

#20 m.oreilly

m.oreilly

    rog'er wilco

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,847 posts
  • Country:lower uncton

Posted 17 May 2008 - 04:29 PM

Posted Image
you both are a bit nutters, methinks...

#21 VROSA

VROSA

    Ghost Member

  • Global Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,043 posts
  • Location:Belo Horizonte - Minas Gerais - Brazil
  • Interests:Hardware, Software, Alphas and Betas, OS Mods, Windows 8.1, Windows 10, Linux, Games, Fun, Friends.
  • Country:Brazil

Posted 17 May 2008 - 04:48 PM

Quote

Windows presentation foundation ? At long last! Finally we don't have to rely on the same cranky code of user32.dll and GDI/GDI+ patch OS that XP was. Now if you have no idea what I'm talking about it's not my problem.....

Quote

The Windows Presentation Foundation (or WPF), formerly code-named Avalon wink.gif is also available for installation on Windows XP SP2, should you require that amount of added bloat...........Now, I personally don't give a toss what your talking about, as that also ain't my problem.

Temperature went up here... lol..



.NET Framework 2.0 just cant be avoided, but for the moment i dont need any framework 3.x on my XP rig !

Quote

you both are a bit nutters, methinks...

...LOL... Thats sick !

#22 Guest_scaramonga_*

Guest_scaramonga_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 May 2008 - 05:43 PM

Posted Image

#23 talker

talker

    Being a Priest is not always easy.

  • Sponsor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 840 posts
  • Location:Huntville, AL, USA
  • Interests:Ah lets see...gee, I know...computers.
  • Country:USA

Posted 17 May 2008 - 05:46 PM

View Postm.oreilly, on May 17 2008, 11:29 AM, said:

Posted Image
you both are a bit nutters, methinks...

I think those two were at church last Sunday but I didn't know who they were. They didn't sign the Guest Book. Thanks Mo, I know their name now... :P

#24 James

James

    New Member

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Country:Malta

Posted 19 May 2008 - 09:54 PM

View PostNvyseal, on May 14 2008, 07:08 PM, said:

why would someone go through all that trouble.

heres a guy keeping an eye on 7: http://windows7news.com/2008/05/12/windows...video/#comments

I'm quoting:
"Not just fake. Fake, fake, fake. Really fake. Obviously fake. Stupidly fake. The "screen capture" part shows off SnagIt, a third party application I use nearly every single day. This is "didn't even try hard" fake.

So please don't email me about it. But please do feel free to ridicule and/or ignore those who weren't savvy enough to figure it out.

Moving on...."

I'm not the only one who thinks it's fake :roadrunner:
http://community.win...-fake-fake.aspx

.NET 2.0 is great for programming apps at 96dpi. Once you change that, go and say a prayer. It's obviosly more mature than WPF. I'm still learning the nuts and bolts of WPF and from what I see I think it's still a work in progress.

#25 m.oreilly

m.oreilly

    rog'er wilco

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,847 posts
  • Country:lower uncton

Posted 19 May 2008 - 10:27 PM

your link doesn't work, and you are a self indulgent little turd...

#26 Guest_scaramonga_*

Guest_scaramonga_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 May 2008 - 10:50 PM

View Postm.oreilly, on May 19 2008, 11:27 PM, said:

your link doesn't work, and you are a self indulgent little turd...



:roadrunner:

#27 Nvyseal

Nvyseal

    Chairman of the Board

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,821 posts
  • Location:From the whatever it is, Pluto
  • Country:USA

Posted 19 May 2008 - 11:23 PM

View PostJames, on May 19 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

I'm quoting:
"Not just fake. Fake, fake, fake. Really fake. Obviously fake. Stupidly fake. The "screen capture" part shows off SnagIt, a third party application I use nearly every single day. This is "didn't even try hard" fake.

So please don't email me about it. But please do feel free to ridicule and/or ignore those who weren't savvy enough to figure it out.

Moving on...."

I'm not the only one who thinks it's fake :roadrunner:
http://community.win...-fake-fake.aspx

.NET 2.0 is great for programming apps at 96dpi. Once you change that, go and say a prayer. It's obviosly more mature than WPF. I'm still learning the nuts and bolts of WPF and from what I see I think it's still a work in progress.


And you take everything that Paul Thurrott says as being real?? hahaha, hes the biggest BS'er out there.

#28 m.oreilly

m.oreilly

    rog'er wilco

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,847 posts
  • Country:lower uncton

Posted 19 May 2008 - 11:36 PM

well, if this is the case, i'm sure we will see many more rather than not...

#29 James

James

    New Member

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Country:Malta

Posted 20 May 2008 - 03:21 PM

Hey you put a smile on my face with your silly comments. :roadrunner:

Sorry about the link. Anyway you got who I'm quoting... Still fake for me whatever you say.... and it doesn't impress me at all.

#30 BlueScreenOfDeath

BlueScreenOfDeath

    ~* Hardware & Beta Guru *~

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 479 posts
  • Location:Little Rock, AR
  • Country:USA

Posted 26 May 2008 - 08:30 PM

some of those features arent even implimented yet... the idea of VHD's is very new so to see it implimented means its faked or they arent telling us things.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users