Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 24th Feb 2007 21:14 UTC, submitted by flanque
Windows Is Windows Vista really the indispensable upgrade that Microsoft wants you to think it is? ZDNet's Kingsley-Hughes says: "Having been using Vista for over 18 months I believe that it's a huge improvement over XP and even though I still use XP I find that I miss many of the features that Vista offers. However, I wouldn't call any of the changes earth-shattering." My take: That is about the most sensible Vista-related conclusion I have read so far.
Thread beginning with comment 216205
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Huge improvement; not earth-shattering
by MollyC on Sat 24th Feb 2007 21:59 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

It's sensible, but not exactly profound or even insightful.
I mean, what *would* be "earth-shattering"?

"Huge improvement but not earth-shattering" could also be said regarding Win3.1, Win98, WinXP, Mac OS 8, 9, Mac OSX 10.1,2,3,4 vis--vis each of their predecessors. The fact is, something "earth-shattering" wouldn't sell. People are already complaining about Office 2007 being to radical a change, for crying out loud.

During my years with Windows and Mac, the only OS releases that I'd classify as *fundamental* improvements were Win3.0, Win9x, and NT 3.1 on the Windows side, and Mac OS 7 and OSX 10.0 on the Mac side. And even for those, the word "earth-shattering" still doesn't come to mind.

OS design is at a stage where improvements will be incremental, not revolutionary, and it's time everyone understood that. Apple understood it a few years ago, which is why they went to the incremental releases every 12-18 month strategy. That's enough to keep their customers satisfied without having to create "earth-shattering" revolutions. Microsoft didn't understand it (which is why they tried to do too much in one release, which resulted in delays and ironically, features being removed to get the project under control), but they sure enough learned it now.

Edited 2007-02-24 22:02

Reply Score: 5

Buck Member since:
2005-06-29

If suddenly all the security issues are gone, if traditional Windows annoyances are gone, if everything suddenly just works without a hiccup, then that could be called "earth-shattering"... in Windows world.

Reply Parent Score: 5

turrini Member since:
2006-10-31

if suddenly all windows source code have been released to the public in a BSD or GPL license, then that could be called "earth-shattering"

Reply Parent Score: 4

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

If suddenly all the security issues are gone, if traditional Linux annoyances are gone, if everything suddenly just works without a hiccup, then that could be called "earth-shattering"... in Linux world.

If suddenly all the security issues are gone, if traditional OS X annoyances are gone, if everything suddenly just works without a hiccup, then that could be called "earth-shattering"... in OS X world.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

I'd call Mac OS X a step back for the Macintosh system; it gained nothing but memory errors in ripping off BSD, and lost its unique advantage as the best alternative to Windows for those users who cannot use open-source software. (Now the best non-Windows closed-source OS is SkyOS, which you can't use for normal everyday tasks without dumping lots of open-source shovelware into it, which is probably just what Microsoft wanted.)

I think the major 'earth-shattering' improvements to the Macintosh OS family were System 6, when Multifinder was included and turned it into a multitasking operating system, and System 9, when it gained Software Update.

Reply Parent Score: -1

thecwin Member since:
2006-01-04

Mac OS 9 didn't have preemptive multitasking or protected memory. A software crash could bring down the operating system, or worse, corrupt memory of core system services.

Mac OS X was a massive step up, due to features such as Unicode, Quartz/GL rendering, Cocoa, decent localisation, wealth of OSS applications, such available now that it had a POSIX compliant architecture...

Reply Parent Score: 5

Bryan Member since:
2005-07-11

I'm hardly an OSS zealot, but I'm having trouble seeing how being closed source could be seen as a feature. Isn't that kinda like saying "it doesn't use enough memory"? The only bad thing about open source platforms I can think of off the top of my head is the device driver situation, which probably wouldn't be an issue of all operating systems were open source.

As for MollyC's comments, I don't think the author was getting at a revolutionary, disorienting change when he said "earth-shattering". I took that to mean "really worth going out of your way to get"--e.g., the jump from Win3.1 to Win95, or ME to XP. Vista is more than "XP with a service pack", but it isn't something I'd go out and tell friends and family they ought to look into ASAP.

Reply Parent Score: 2