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 216285
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

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

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

I'm interested in your anti-OSS religion and would like to subscribe to its newsletter. Are you a Scientologist?

Reply Parent Score: 5

edwdig Member since:
2005-08-22

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

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

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.

So true. If you compile source on OSS systems, it almost always works, and the same for installing binaries on proprietary systems. But if you want to install binaries on OSS systems or if want to compile source on proprietary systems, good luck finding them and getting it to work.

Actually, I think vendors have had more success delivering binaries for OSS systems than delivering source for proprietary systems. For one thing, most proprietary source is written for expensive compiler suites. But in the end it's best to stick with source on OSS and binaries on proprietary systems. That's just how they're designed to operate.

Reply Parent Score: 2