OSNews

the only thing vista has going for it is DX10 and that could have been backported but MS just wanted a reason to force peeple to upgrade. drivers for 'new USB' devices will be made for XP and essentially also 2000 for a long time yet.

to us an OS isnt defined by its GUI. to the majority of PC users the GUI is the OS.

security is as good as xp with all the patches an hotfixes.

the only thing vista has going for it is DX10 and that could have been backported

No it couldn't. DX10 relies on Vista's new WDDM driver model, which is fundamentally different than 2000/XP's WDM. It makes no technical or economical sense to backport such a major new OS part to older version.

Edited 2007-04-03 18:57

There is DX10, theres also a modern ui, a modern (fully integrated) search, intelligent replacement for menus (taking into account fitts law), an extremely upgraded file explorer, a self optimizing/diagnosing/repairing system, the ability to play dvds out of the box, and a networking interface that is actually intuitive and intelligent (to name the things that make me significantly happier with it then any previous version of windows.)
[i]
to us an OS isnt defined by its GUI. to the majority of PC users the GUI is the OS. [/q]

Amen to that, and the bling factor is definitely there. However, the interface will be the most frustrating thing for longtime windows users to adjust to. Win95 copied the mac os like crazy without a real understand of what the principals were behind the design choices. Nowadays, usability isn't exactly cutting edge and microsoft has professional designers, however they have been saddled with the win95 ui legacy. This is the version of windows (and office, office 2k7 is hands down the easiest to use so far) that breaks the old ways of doing things. As such the most complaints I hear from vista users (in RL, not tech forums) are ui related.


You are forgetting the integrated spyware and firewall that ships with it, and the much maligned UAC. On previous versions of windows if something were going to write to places it shouldn't, there was no protection. Now windows is on par with mac and linux when it comes to user level security. UAC still needs tweaking (mac is the only one who gets this right, gksudo and uac pop up WAY too often on linux and windows for desktop machines), but I have used linux for years and that not only doesnt bother me, but I would much rather have it there then not have it there. As for the spyware and firewall, I have been using it for a few weeks now so its hard to give an honest critique, however, there is no spyware on my system so far (that i know of, i verify every now and then with third party apps), and registry changes whatnot are flagged for approval every time.

Overall, the security in vista is (if anything) too paranoid, and needs to be toned down in certain ways. The overall methodology is bang-on though, everything is locked down, and privileges are only escalated when its needed. Compared to previous versions, security is like night and day on vista, and brings it up to being an acceptable os to use on the web, which previous versions of windows definitely weren't (from an objective point of view)

I think you're underestimating PC Worlds sales abilities somewhat. ;-)

Seriously though, these days most average users do care a little more about what's under the bonnet. They may not understand the details (they take what MS / PC World say as gospel) but they still do care. In fact, over the years I've been working in IT (and baring in mind I don't work in sales), I've had quite a number of people who are far from techies ask me about the latest OS (be it XP, 2000 or even Windows systems prior to that) and what the OS offered that the previous didn't.

In short - i think that, while most consumers may not understand the jargon, they do care that there are fundamental differences beyond the user interface.

An OS isn't defined by its GUI.

.....but it's judged by it most heavily.

"An OS isn't defined by its GUI."

Given that the operating system is designed to be used, then its interface, given that it is graphical is very much how it is defined as far as the user of the operating system is concerned.

That the drivers are outside the kernel space now, or the sound architecture has been revamped means nothing to me as a user of the system.

That aside, if people want w2k looks from Vista for a bit more speed thats fair enough; that is their defining concern for the operating system experience.

After some initial GUI-shock given the differences between XP and Vista I really like what Microsoft have done. I'm not saying they are innovative because they're not, but they are done well for the most part. The searches built in work really well and are slick (not just the one on the "Start" menu) the breadcrumb navigation is an excellent improvement on the old pathing.