Windows Server 2008... Is already SP1



  • I know that 2008 Server was supposed to be released at the same time as Vista SP1, however I think someone was a little over zealous:

     sp1

     



  • cool, so does that mean we've avoided all the crap and bugs that are inevitable in an initial release?

    Shame Vista didn't start at service pack one million.

     



  • It is kind of strange, but with it sharing the kernel and most other stuff with Vista, it makes sense to artificially call the first release SP1. That way the next SP is "SP2 for Vista and Windows Server 2008", not "SP2 for Vista/SP1 for Windows Server 2008" and all the ensuing confusion that could would lead from it.

     



  • What I find troublesome is that nobody cared enough to update that Windows 95 monitor picture, despite the $$$ and t that went into the pretty Vista icons. 



  • I didn't think the icons in Vista were all that great.  It seems that they are only interested in minor changes to the icons between releases in order to not confuse the computer illiterate.



  • @CRNewsom said:

    I didn't think the icons in Vista were all that great.  It seems that they are only interested in minor changes to the icons between releases in order to not confuse the computer illiterate.

     

    Do you mean besides the major change in having the icons be vector based? Because I think that is a drastic improvement.



  • I was referring to the <i>design</i> of the icons, not the nature of them.  For instance, the recycle bin looks like only a minor change in design from the one used in XP.  It is a much more detailed recycle bin, but only a minor change in design from the previous one (clear bin from a frosted, translucent one).  Maybe it's just my aesthetics, and my preference to use the command line...



  • @CRNewsom said:

    I was referring to the <i>design</i> of the icons, not the nature of them.  For instance, the recycle bin looks like only a minor change in design from the one used in XP.  It is a much more detailed recycle bin, but only a minor change in design from the previous one (clear bin from a frosted, translucent one).  Maybe it's just my aesthetics, and my preference to use the command line...

     

    Not really sure how much fancier or more detailed they could get with the recycling bin....

    I don't think the icons in Vista look that bad really. But you have always been able to replace the icons for these things.

    I am sure plenty of other people can point every other little shortcoming in Vista though...



  •  @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I am sure plenty of other people can point every other little shortcoming in Vista though...

    Touché.



  • @Quinnum said:

    cool, so does that mean we've avoided all the crap and bugs that are inevitable in an initial release?

    Just think of all those people who staunchly say, " I'll wait for Service Pack 1! "  Now, they can safely upgrade without worry.  After all, it's not really a first release anymore.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Not really sure how much fancier or more detailed they could get with the recycling bin....

    OSX has a wire mesh bin. Tehee.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Not really sure how much fancier or more detailed they could get with the recycling bin....
     

    I've always wanted to see more than just "empty" and "full."  I think there should be a single crumpled up peice of paper added for every so many megs you put in.  When it gets extremely full, you start seeing it overflow, ie, crumpled sheets over the top, on the floor next to the bin.   Perhaps it could even start encroaching on the surrounding desktop space eventually -- sort of a friendly but persistent reminder to empty the thing and keep your office clean.



  • @shadowman said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Not really sure how much fancier or more detailed they could get with the recycling bin....
     

    I've always wanted to see more than just "empty" and "full."  I think there should be a single crumpled up peice of paper added for every so many megs you put in.  When it gets extremely full, you start seeing it overflow, ie, crumpled sheets over the top, on the floor next to the bin.   Perhaps it could even start encroaching on the surrounding desktop space eventually -- sort of a friendly but persistent reminder to empty the thing and keep your office clean.

     

    That would be fantastic, and then all the forums would again be filled with WTF! Bloatwarez!



  • @shadowman said:

    I've always wanted to see more than just "empty" and "full."  I think there should be a single crumpled up peice of paper added for every so many megs you put in.  When it gets extremely full, you start seeing it overflow, ie, crumpled sheets over the top, on the floor next to the bin.   Perhaps it could even start encroaching on the surrounding desktop space eventually -- sort of a friendly but persistent reminder to empty the thing and keep your office clean.

    SHELL EXTENSION!



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @CRNewsom said:

    I didn't think the icons in Vista were all that great.  It seems that they are only interested in minor changes to the icons between releases in order to not confuse the computer illiterate.

     

    Do you mean besides the major change in having the icons be vector based? Because I think that is a drastic improvement.

     

     

    Figures you're into the girlie-graphix. 



  • @shadowman said:

    I've always wanted to see more than just "empty" and "full."  I think there should be a single crumpled up peice of paper added for every so many megs you put in.  When it gets extremely full, you start seeing it overflow, ie, crumpled sheets over the top, on the floor next to the bin.   Perhaps it could even start encroaching on the surrounding desktop space eventually -- sort of a friendly but persistent reminder to empty the thing and keep your office clean.

    Why stop there? You should 3D render your documents onto crumpled up paper (paper sizes correct for your region, with full AA/shading too, of course) individually, deleted .EXEs should be rendered as CDs/floppies depending on the install media, photos should be rendered as crumpled up polaroids, deleted emails should be in evelopes with the recipient/senders addresses rendered on the front, etc.

    The fact that Windows doesn't do this instead of a boolean empty/full that doesn't even depict what's in there disgusts me.



  • Actually the earlier Longhorn betas (pre RC) did do the recycle bin thing you speak of (where it would incrementally fill the graphical bin). For some reason it was removed.



  • @RayS said:

    Why stop there? You should 3D render your documents onto crumpled up paper (paper sizes correct for your region, with full AA/shading too, of course) individually, deleted .EXEs should be rendered as CDs/floppies depending on the install media, photos should be rendered as crumpled up polaroids, deleted emails should be in evelopes with the recipient/senders addresses rendered on the front, etc.

    You wanna write a screensaver that will start with an empty trash can and "toss" said items into it based on the current Recycle Bin and e-mail Trash folder contents? If so, I may stop using SHIFT+DEL from now on just to see what combinations come up.



  • @RayS said:

    Why stop there? You should 3D render your documents onto crumpled up paper (paper sizes correct for your region, with full AA/shading too, of course) individually, deleted .EXEs should be rendered as CDs/floppies depending on the install media, photos should be rendered as crumpled up polaroids, deleted emails should be in evelopes with the recipient/senders addresses rendered on the front, etc.


    BumpTop Desktop



  • @RobTF said:

    Actually the earlier Longhorn betas (pre RC) did do the recycle bin thing you speak of (where it would incrementally fill the graphical bin). For some reason it was removed.

    Maybe they had trouble coming up with a proper rule for determining how
    the data in Trash corresponds to the fullness of its icon. And I can't
    blame them. Most choices you make would be fairly arbitrairy (10% of
    disk? 5% of free space? linear rendering? logarithmical? file size =
    crumple size?) -- and do you add complexity by making it customisable
    to the user? At least the empty/something duality is beyond dispute.



  • @dhromed said:

    Maybe they had trouble coming up with a proper rule for determining how the data in Trash corresponds to the fullness of its icon.

    User-defined number of bytes -- which is currently being done with a percent slider in XP (and probably others):

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Of course, it would probably take forever for any visible change in the icon in the case of large drives, so another slider would probably be more useful.

    @dhromed said:

    do you add complexity by making it customisable to the user?

    I don't see how that adds complexity considering it can be defaulted like everything else in Windows.

    @dhromed said:

    At least the empty/something duality is beyond dispute.

    I don't disagree with you on that.



  • It's a server OS fer crying out loud - the last thing it needs is a sexy Recycle Bin icon.

    They did the same for Server 2003, by the way (although they used a conventional numbering scheme after it was actually relelased), so no great surprise there.  I'd seriously worry about the viability of the so-called "SP" if it's never been used in anger in a real-world production environment, though.



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    @dhromed said:
    Maybe they had trouble coming up with a proper rule for determining how the data in Trash corresponds to the fullness of its icon.

    User-defined number of bytes -- which is currently being done with a percent slider in XP (and probably others):

     

    [screen]

     

    I had absolutely and completely forgotten about those options. 



  • @mfah said:

    It's a server OS fer crying out loud - the last thing it needs is a sexy Recycle Bin icon.
     

    I can't even think why anyone would incorporate this into a desktop OS.

    People bash MS enough as is for being 'bloatware' just because they added fancier graphics to Vista. Can you imagine the /. outcry for the recycling bin being fancy and taking up MORE resources?



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @CRNewsom said:

    I didn't think the icons in Vista were all that great.  It seems that they are only interested in minor changes to the icons between releases in order to not confuse the computer illiterate.

     

    Do you mean besides the major change in having the icons be vector based? Because I think that is a drastic improvement.

     

     

    Actually, I don't think Vista supports vector-based icons.   That is, the icon source is still bitmapped, regardless of the fact that Vista scales icons "smoothly" between 32x32 and 256x256 (using interpolation, presumably).  If Vista used true vector-based icons, you would be able to scale icons to any resolution without loss of detail, like vector-based Flash animations.

    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511296.aspx

    http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=505291&view=findpost&p=587974529 

    I agree that the "smooth scaling" is nice.

     



  • @magetoo said:

    BumpTop Desktop

    Wow. How completely absurd is that? Why wouldn't I want a load of messed up piles of PDF icons in a 3D sandbox? Want to find the particular one you want to open? Good luck!! The fact that there's 46x more laughter than applause in the 2nd video kind of proves that it's a useless, albeit it possibly fun distraction, but with zero practical value.

    I wonder what other stupid suggestions I can make and find out that some idiot's already implemented them? How about replacing the mouse with a plastic gorillas head that moves the cursor based on the movement of your finger shoved up it's nose.

    Anyway, back to your regular scheduled programming... 



  • exactly.. note that I never said MS were wrong to remove it 🙂



  •  So the first general release of Server 2008 calls itself SP1?  Nice.  But unsurprising.  The first release of that OS (Windows NT) was labeled "Version 3.0".  This just continues the tradition.



  • @CodeSimian said:


    Actually, I don't think Vista supports vector-based icons.   That is, the icon source is still bitmapped, regardless of the fact that Vista scales icons "smoothly" between 32x32 and 256x256 (using interpolation, presumably).  If Vista used true vector-based icons, you would be able to scale icons to any resolution without loss of detail, like vector-based Flash animations.

    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511296.aspx

    http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=505291&view=findpost&p=587974529 

    I agree that the "smooth scaling" is nice.

     

    Yep looks like you were right. They are certainly light years ahead of older windows icons though. 

    I stand corrected, thanks.



  • @magetoo said:

    @RayS said:

    Why stop there? You should 3D render your documents onto crumpled up paper (paper sizes correct for your region, with full AA/shading too, of course) individually, deleted .EXEs should be rendered as CDs/floppies depending on the install media, photos should be rendered as crumpled up polaroids, deleted emails should be in evelopes with the recipient/senders addresses rendered on the front, etc.


    BumpTop Desktop

    Man, beat me to it!  (by more than two days) 


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.