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 216238
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

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:

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

Kroc Member since:

True, but to a lot of people at the time it felt like a step back because of the loss of functionality they had grown accustomed to, like the spacial Finder, windowshade, control strip, customizable Apple menu and so on...

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bryan Member since:

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

Almafeta Member since:

I'm hardly an OSS zealot, but I'm having trouble seeing how being closed source could be seen as a feature.

There are users to whom OSS is not an option, whether due to ethical, moral, or religious objections. For those users, your choices are quite limited, and Windows is the only real option left to you.

Reply Parent Score: 2

edwdig Member since:

Open Source makes great products but horrible systems. For a product, all you care about is that it does the job. For a system, you care about things like source and binary compatibility, neither of which are very good with Open Source. Open Source projects generally take the view that because the source is available, it doesn't matter if they break compatibility somewhere. Binary compatibility is completely irrelevant to them because of that. Source compatibility they're usually better about, but still no where near the level with closed source systems.

The device driver situation has nothing to do with open or closed source. It's a closed spec issue. Back in the DOS days, all hardware had specs freely available (as DOS didn't provide many standard hardware APIs).

Reply Parent Score: 1