After my previous short first impressions 'review' of Windows Vista Build 6000, the final build, I promised you a full review which would look a bit deeper into the system, focussing on less obvious matters than appearance alone. Since there are so many new features in Windows Vista, it is very easy to lose track of them. Hence, this review will follow (where possible) a much linked-to page on Wikipedia: Features new to Windows Vista.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-04-11
Technically, a Microkernel-based operating system should not crash if one server goes down.
However, "Technically" and what actually tends to happen aren't always the same thing.
If you're going to bash the new Windows, bash it. Don't gripe about little things that ALWAYS crop up on a new OS.
Member since:2006-04-11
Member since:2005-12-28
1) Not everybody that do not totally submit without any question to the magic wonders of mount Vista is a Linux user. Stop getting off on thinking that everyones brainwashed who doesn't use the magic wonders of Vista.
2) Why does most people use Windows ? Because they get it preinstalled. That is also how Vista will enter the marked, preinstalled.
Well it seems like you where born in a Windows bobble, have lived al of your life in a Windows bobble and will end your days in a Windows bobble - with no comprehension of what is going on outside.
Member since:2006-07-16
"I don't think the price issue is an arguable point. It's definitely expensive. What annoys me is that there are a lot of linux fanboys/windows haters that would still hate windows even if it was $50. It seems like there are quite a few of those types here. Stop getting off on thinking that everyones brainwashed who doesn't use the uber l337 Linux."
That would be me! :-)
Member since:2006-09-22
These threads usually turn to flaming between windows and linux users so I decided to start it off. my apologies
Ohh... that really makes sense! I'm going to start the flamefest before anyone else! Yeah!
Please keep using Windows, you deserve it.
Now, nice review Thom, it's good to see an objective view from Vista. Last version I tested was Beta 2 and I'm not likely to buy the thing, so it's nice to see a fanboysm-free review.
Member since:2005-07-28
No, people use Windows because:
(a) They are gamers, and due to market momentum, most games are written for Windows.
(b) They do not know, or do not want to know, or do not want to take the time to know, or do not have the time to learn, about computers and operating systems. Increasingly, being computer savvy is less and less important to have a decent Linux desktop experience, but I wouldn't say that Linux is a drop-in replacement for people who are not computer enthusiasts. Not yet, anyway.
(c) They are convinced that there is no other alternative, or just don't care about their operating system. Or claim not to. Amazing how many people claim to be completely disinterested in their computers but ask me why their system is so slow (spyware and crufted-to-oblivion registry) and ask me to fix it every few months. Or why they're BSOD'ing suddenly, or why their OS has a tendency to "rot."
(d) Windows is installed on the computer when they buy it.
(e) They are forced to use Windows because they use Windows-only software, or their office or educational institution uses it.
You may well feel that Linux is "so terrible that no one cares it's free," but I think you're really just talking about yourself. Most people have no opinion on Linux, because most people haven't ever tried it.
And they haven't tried it, because of the reasons above.
Sorry you had a bad Linux experience. Many of us have been using it for years and wouldn't dream of switching to Windows. You are not alone in your opinion that Linux is terrible, but I doubt that represents the prevalent opinion, or reason, why people do not use Linux. As I said, I doubt most people have any opinion on Linux at all, at least here in the USA where a lot of people haven't even heard of it. If I was going to bash Linux, that's where I'd start.
The same reasons probably hold true for Macs, except that Apple actually does (fairly clever) advertising so people are at least vaguely familiar with Macs even if they've never used one. The success of the iPod and lifestyle branding, as well as the common sentiment about Apples among those who don't use them (mainly positive as far as I can tell) will hopefully lead to increased market share. Apple should really scale up their campaign to get cheap Apples into schools. They've always made inroads into education, and they should ramp this up as an investment.
Because I'm pretty convinced that if junior uses an Apple in school, it will drive computer purchases at home, which will lead to greater corporate presence when junior grows up and can make decisions for his company, IT-wise.
A good percentage of people in my high school had Apple //e's (I hate nouns that can't be pluralized in a reasonable manner, so please forgive the apostrophe) at home, because when I was in high school, that's what most of the school used. Many people's only exposure to programming was via BASIC or LOGO (eek) on an Apple //e. When I was in college at a fairy sizable American university, the core curriculum required an intro to computers course which covered spreadsheets, word processing, and (inexplicably) BASIC programming.
This course was taught on, and required the use of, Macs. Most non-technical students at the University used Macs for the rest of their college days as a result of this. Most of the labs had about 20 Macs for each ill-maintained, lonely, fairly sad looking DOS-based PC.
I was was one of the few people who used the PC (I had one in my apartment, which I bought because I wanted to run DOS-based BBS software at the time; otherwise, I probably would have bought a Mac.) I have to wonder if the prevalence of Macs at my university was a result of my state's preference for Apples in middle schools and high schools.
Linux has no significant capitalization behind it for the desktop market (Novell's promotional efforts thus far do not impress me), and I doubt any company is willing to step forward and provide a lot of discounted hardware running Linux into schools.
This might be an interesting charity project - raise money from Linux users to purchase computer labs running Linux for underfunded school districts here in the USA. In the long run, this can only increase popularity (and hopefully adoption) of Linux on the desktop, while at the same time serving a public good. Win-win scenario, unless you're Microsoft.
Without television advertising, widespread pre-installation on new systems, or extensive use in schools, at least in the United States where I live, I doubt Linux will ever take a significant chunk of the desktop market. The only place I ever see Linux mentioned on TV is in corporate server commercials, such as ones by IBM.
To this day, the cliche that Linux is great on servers but not ready for the desktop persists. Which makes no sense to me based on my own personal experience, but who am I to challenge this Great Law of OS Physics, where Linux must perpetually be "not ready for the desktop?" I am not an anarchist and I certainly do not want to challenge the authority of our dark masters at the Gartner Group, either. Papal infallibility is not something to be trifled with.
I hope to one day eat these words. I understand that much of the rest of the world is more Linux-positive, and I think there's something to be said for Americans to be more familiar with Linux as networks, businesses, and educational institutions become increasingly more international.
As for the "OS ecosystem" of the internet and security concerns related to that, I think it's in everyone's interest to have more hetereogeneity.
And a question for people who solidly identify as Windows users, and I honestly do not know what the answer to this question is - how many of you use Windows because you actively like it, as opposed to disliking or for other reasons not being able to use something else? Have you used Macs and Linux machines at all? Was it frustration with these that make you use Windows or do you just, like, completely dig Windows?
Now, how about Mac and Linux users?
I imagine that most people use Windows grudgingly, because other OSes lack an important feature or compatibility with something they need to do, rather than out of enthusiasm for Microsoft (or because they just hate other operating systems more.) But I could be wrong.
I actively like Linux, and I know that most Mac users actively like Macs and the OS X series of operating systems. Same is true of xBSD users.
Now the Timex Sinclair. Not ready for the desktop. Boy I'll tellya....
Member since:2006-01-28
So maybe it's not a graphic or sound card driver? Honestly, I don't know of any OS that can stand up to shitty drivers. Sure, the entire OS might not go down in all cases, but generally, it has some sort of unpleasent side effects. For example, if the entire screen goes blank and I have to kill the desktop envrioment, that's not a whole lot better than an OS crash, especially when it takes longer to boot back into the DE than it does to reboot the Windows OS.
Most operating systems do not crash because of poor drivers. A bad driver may mean loss of internet connectivity or no sound or no graphical server, but never a complete lock-up. Claiming that a hard crash where you may lose your data to a corrupted file system or due to unsaved work is in the same ballpark is a very large stretch.
Most people that use a Unix or Linux know that they can restart their session quicly by doing Ctrl+Alt+Backspace or that they can type startx at the screen to get back to a graphical environment. Both of these options take seconds.
If your driver is buggy, you can always turn to Vesa, which is good enough for everything except gaming, which means that you can have a stable operating system while you wait for a better driver.
Please stop making excuses for things that are inexcusable. An operating system should not crash in the XXI century.
Member since:2005-07-06
An operating system should not crash in the XXI century.
Any monolitic-kernel OS can be crashed by bad driver, because drivers run in kernel space.
Most people that use a Unix or Linux know that they can restart their session quicly by doing Ctrl+Alt+Backspace or that they can type startx at the screen to get back to a graphical environment. Both of these options take seconds.
In reality, with buggy driver you'll receive kernel panic on "Unix or Linux" in same way as on NT4/5 or OSX.
Edited 2006-12-04 20:21
Member since:
2005-11-13
Why should bad drivers bring down an entire OS? And wasn't this one of the much-touted improvements of Vista, the fact that the entired driver stack had been re-written from graphic to sound card drivers?
So maybe it's not a graphic or sound card driver? Honestly, I don't know of any OS that can stand up to shitty drivers. Sure, the entire OS might not go down in all cases, but generally, it has some sort of unpleasent side effects. For example, if the entire screen goes blank and I have to kill the desktop envrioment, that's not a whole lot better than an OS crash, especially when it takes longer to boot back into the DE than it does to reboot the Windows OS.
And for those who are complaining about the price, the problem isn't that it's too expensive - the problem is you can't afford it